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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims 19-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 19-21, 23-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0212142) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. No. 2026/0143402).
Regarding claims 19 and 24, Patil discloses a method a non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) (figure 4 non AP MLD; paragraph 76: MLD 2) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the non-AP MLD comprising:
at least one processor (figure 3 processor 335); and
at least one computer memory (figure 3 memory 345) operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions (paragraph 119) that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations comprising:
transmitting a management frame related to a multi-link operation (figure 5 block ACK setup management frame; paragraph 73);
wherein a first non-AP station (STA) and a second non-AP STA are affiliated with the non-AP MLD (see figure 4 NonAP-MLD 1 with STA p as first link and STA q as second link; figure 5 and 7 MLD 2; paragraph 76), the first non-AP STA is related to a first link, the second non-AP STA is related to a second link (see figure 4, first link is STA1 or STA2; second link is STA2 or STA1);
wherein the management frame is transmitted by the first non-AP STA (see figure 5 BA setup frame is transmitted by STA p of MLD 2 (non-AP)),
wherein the management frame includes Traffic Identifier (TID) mapping information indicating links on which frames belonging to each TID can be exchanged (paragraph 73: MLD sends a frame indicating one or more links to which the TID is mapped),
wherein a block acknowledgment (BA) for a different link is enabled by the management frame (paragraph 73: Block ACK (BA) setup frame to establish a common BA session for traffic ID); and
based on the management frame (paragraph 73: based on BA setup frame exchange with all agreed conditions, a BA frame is transmitted), transmitting a BA frame for a first data unit through the second link, wherein the first data unit was received through the first link (figure 9 step 906; paragraph 87 in view of figure 7 STA p as first link and STA q as second link: block BA is transmitted through the second link (STA q) including feedback for packets from first and second links).
Patil does not teach wherein the management frame includes capability information related to a maximum number of links to be supported by the non-AP MLD.
However, in the same field of multi-link, Zhou discloses transmitting, by a first non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the non-AP MLD, a management frame (paragraph 6: management frame) includes link information related to a maximum number of links to be supported by the non-AP MLD (see figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 7, 43, 55, and 66: wireless devices exchange link aggregation capability including capability for parallel/simultaneous transmission/reception and maximum number of links that are supported at the same time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Patil wherein the management frame includes capability information related to a maximum number of links to be supported by the non-AP MLD.
The motivation would have been for acquiring other node’s capability for optimal communication in parallel over a plurality of wireless link (paragraph 7).
Regarding claims 20 and 25, all limitations of claims 19 and 24 are disclosed above. Patil does not explicitly teach wherein the non-AP MLD receives a BA frame
for a second data unit through the first link, wherein the second data unit was transmitted through the first link. However, Patil’s figures 5 and 9 and paragraphs 76-79 and 84-87 teach BA frame transmission after data frame reception between two MLD devices where MLD 1 could be an AP STA or non-AP STA and vice versa (MLD 2) (there is no restriction of BA frame transmission only come from MLD 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Patil wherein the non-AP MLD receives a BA frame for a second data unit through the first link, wherein the second data unit was transmitted through the first link.
The motivation would have been for BA agreement between two MLD devices.
Regarding claims 21 and 26, all limitations of claims 19 and 24 are disclosed above. Patil does not teach the management frame further includes link information indicating that the first link and the second link are related to a simultaneous
transmission and reception operation.
However, Zhou discloses the management frame further includes link information indicating that the first link and the second link are related to a simultaneous
transmission and reception operation (paragraphs 7-9, 43, 55 and 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Patil the management frame further includes link information indicating that the first link and the second link are related to a simultaneous transmission and reception operation.
The motivation would have been for link aggregation indication.
Regarding claims 23 and 28, all limitations of claims 19 and 24 are disclosed above. Patil does not teach but Zhou disclose wherein the first link and the second link are mapped to one TID (paragraph 6: mapped to at least one TID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Patil wherein the first link and the second link are mapped to one TID.
The motivation would have been for packet-based aggregation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 27 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:
Regarding claims 22 and 27, Patil reference discloses a concept of block Acknowledgement for a plurality of packets via multiple links. Zhou references teach multi-link capability including block Acknowledgement parameters.
Claims 22 and 27 are objected to be allowable over prior art as their limitations are not found in the art. Furthermore, even if the combination of prior arts discloses the foregoing limitations inherently or in combination, it would invariably require impermissible hindsight reasoning due to the numbers and verities of references
required and the content in which the limitation is recited in the independent claims. It
would not have been obvious to combine the several references to teach the limitations
of the amended independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 6 of Remark, regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the Applicant argues that Patil does not teach “wherein the management frame includes Traffic Identifier (TID) mapping information indicating links on which frames belonging to each TID can be exchanged,”
“wherein a block acknowledgment (BA) for a different link is enabled by the management frame; and”
“based on the management frame, transmitting a BA frame for a first data unit through the second link, wherein the first data unit was received through the first link.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Patil’s paragraph 73 recites “one MLD (such as, MLD1) may send a request frame indicating one or more links to which the TID should be mapped, and the other MLD may send a response frame indicating the same links” which reads on limitation “wherein the management frame includes Traffic Identifier (TID) mapping information indicating links on which frames belonging to each TID can be exchanged.”
Patil’s paragraph 73 also recites “FIG. 5 shows an example BA setup frame exchange between MLDs… the setup frame exchange may be considered a negotiation in which frames are exchanged over one of the common links to establish a common BA session for a traffic ID (TID)” which discloses block acknowledgment (BA) for a different link is enabled by the BA setup frame.
Patil also discloses limitation “based on the management frame (paragraph 73: based on BA setup frame exchange with all agreed conditions, a BA frame is transmitted), transmitting a BA frame for a first data unit through the second link, wherein the first data unit was received through the first link.” (figure 9 step 906; paragraph 87 in view of figure 7 STA p as first link and STA q as second link: block BA is transmitted through the second link (STA q) including feedback for packets from first and second links).
Thus, Patil is determined to teach the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights