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 .
The amendment filed 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 21-22, 25, 27, 29, 31-33, 35, 37, 39 and 41-47 are pending.
Claims 23-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 38 and 40 are canceled.
Claims 21-22, 25, 27, 29, 31-33, 35, 37, 39 and 41-47 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21, 25, 31 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. (Pub. No.: US 20180310340 A1), hereafter referred to as Noh.
In regard to Claim 21, Noh teaches A method of a first device using multi-link (the base station attempts to transmit data through multiple carriers including the first CC, the second CC, and the fourth CC, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) in a wireless local area network (FIG. 14 illustrates a communication scheme (e.g., wireless LAN) that operates in an unlicensed band, Para. 93, FIG. 14), the method comprising: performing, by a first access point (AP) (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13. A macro base station may be connected with multiple radio remote heads (RRHs) through an X2 interface, Para. 89, FIG. 13), a first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17. Referring to FIG. 17(a), interference has not occurred in all carriers in which the back-off is performed. Thus, the back-off of the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC is simultaneously completed at B1, Para. 138, FIG. 17(a)) in a first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including the first CC, the second CC, and the fourth CC, Para. 137, FIG. 17).
Noh teaches gaining, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13. A macro base station may be connected with multiple radio remote heads (RRHs) through an X2 interface, Para. 89, FIG. 13), a right to initiate transmission by completing the first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17).
Noh teaches selecting, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13. A macro base station may be connected with multiple radio remote heads (RRHs) through an X2 interface, Para. 89, FIG. 13) that has gained the right to initiate transmission (Each RRH may perform wireless communication with an X UE or an X′ UE in a predetermined area (31) by using an unlicensed band carrier, Para. 89, FIG. 13. The base station performs data transmission based on the back-off procedure performed independently for each carrier, Para. 137, FIG. 17) based on the first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17. Referring to FIG. 17(a), interference has not occurred in all carriers in which the back-off is performed. Thus, the back-off of the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC is simultaneously completed at B1, Para. 138, FIG. 17(a)), to not transmit a first frame (B2 indicates a back-off completion time delayed due to interference during the back-off, Para. 137, FIG. 17. The completion time of the back-off of the fourth CC is delayed to B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) to a first station (STA) (X UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) affiliated with a second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) in the first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) in a case that a first condition is satisfied (interference has occurred in the fourth CC. The base station may postpone the data transmission until the back-off of some or all of the carriers in which interference has occurred is completed, Para. 140, FIGS. 13, 17(c)).
Noh teaches performing, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), a second backoff operation (B2 indicates a back-off completion time delayed due to interference during the back-off, Para. 137, FIG. 17) in the first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including the first CC, the second CC, and the fourth CC, Para. 137, FIG. 17), after the first condition transitions from being satisfied to being unsatisfied (FIG. 17(c) shows no more interference in a time interval immediately preceding B2 after the interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi).
Noh teaches transmitting, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), to the first STA (X UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13), the first frame in the first link (transmits data through the fourth CC, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)), in response to completing the second backoff operation (The base station simultaneously transmits data through the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC at the time point B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)).
Noh teaches wherein the first condition is satisfied in a case of occurring interference to reception on the first link (interference has occurred in the fourth CC, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) caused by transmission of a second frame (FIG. 17(c) shows a time interval of interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi in 4th CC, Para. 140) at a second STA (conventional equipments (e.g., wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) equipments), Para. 91) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) in a second link (a third CC, Para. 136, FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including at least one of a first component carrier (a first CC), a second component carrier (a second CC), a third component carrier (a third CC), and a fourth component carrier (a fourth CC), Para. 136, FIG. 17).
In regard to Claim 25, Noh teaches wherein transmitting the first frame comprises: transmitting, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), the first frame at a time in which a reception of the first frame is not interfered (The base station simultaneously transmits data through the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC at the time point B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) by the second STA (conventional equipments (e.g., wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) equipments), Para. 91) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13).
In regard to Claim 31, Noh teaches A first device using multi-link in a wireless local area network (FIG. 14 illustrates a communication scheme (e.g., wireless LAN) that operates in an unlicensed band, Para. 93, FIG. 14), comprising: a processor (processor 210, Para. 229, FIG. 31), wherein the processor causes the first device to: perform, by a first access point (AP) (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), a first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17. Referring to FIG. 17(a), interference has not occurred in all carriers in which the back-off is performed. Thus, the back-off of the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC is simultaneously completed at B1, Para. 138, FIG. 17(a)) in a first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including the first CC, the second CC, and the fourth CC, Para. 137, FIG. 17).
Noh teaches gain, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), a right to initiate transmission by completing the first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17).
Noh teaches select, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13) that has gained the right to initiate transmission (Each RRH may perform wireless communication with an X UE or an X′ UE in a predetermined area (31) by using an unlicensed band carrier, Para. 89, FIG. 13. The base station performs data transmission based on the back-off procedure performed independently for each carrier, Para. 137, FIG. 17) based on the first backoff operation (in the FIG. 17, B1 indicates a time point when the back-off is completed without interference, Para. 137, FIG. 17. Referring to FIG. 17(a), interference has not occurred in all carriers in which the back-off is performed. Thus, the back-off of the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC is simultaneously completed at B1, Para. 138, FIG. 17(a)), to not transmit a first frame (B2 indicates a back-off completion time delayed due to interference during the back-off, Para. 137, FIG. 17. The completion time of the back-off of the fourth CC is delayed to B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) to a first station (STA) (X UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) affiliated with a second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) in the first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) in a case that a first condition is satisfied (interference has occurred in the fourth CC. The base station may postpone the data transmission until the back-off of some or all of the carriers in which interference has occurred is completed, Para. 140, FIGS. 13, 17(c)).
Noh teaches perform, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), a second backoff operation (B2 indicates a back-off completion time delayed due to interference during the back-off, Para. 137, FIG. 17) in the first link (the fourth CC, Para. 138, 140, FIGS. 17(a), FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including the first CC, the second CC, and the fourth CC, Para. 137, FIG. 17), after the first condition transitions from being satisfied to being unsatisfied (FIG. 17(c) shows no more interference in a time interval immediately preceding B2 after the interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi).
Noh teaches transmit, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), to the first STA (X UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13), the first frame in the first link (transmits data through the fourth CC, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)), in response to completing the second backoff operation (The base station simultaneously transmits data through the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC at the time point B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)).
Noh teaches wherein the first condition is satisfied in a case of occurring interference to reception on the first link (interference has occurred in the fourth CC, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) caused by transmission of a second frame (FIG. 17(c) shows a time interval of interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi in 4th CC, Para. 140) at a second STA (conventional equipments (e.g., wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) equipments), Para. 91) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13) in a second link (a third CC, Para. 136, FIG. 17(c)) of the multi-link (multiple carriers including at least one of a first component carrier (a first CC), a second component carrier (a second CC), a third component carrier (a third CC), and a fourth component carrier (a fourth CC), Para. 136, FIG. 17).
In regard to Claim 35, Noh teaches wherein the processor further causes the first device to: transmit, by the first AP (the base station, Para. 137, FIGS. 13, 17) affiliated with the first device (radio remote heads (RRHs), Para. 89, FIG. 13), the first frame at a time in which a reception of the first frame is not interfered (The base station simultaneously transmits data through the first CC, the second CC and the fourth CC at the time point B2, Para. 140, FIG. 17(c)) by the second STA (conventional equipments (e.g., wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) equipments), Para. 91) affiliated with the second device (X′ UE in a macro area (32), Para. 89, FIG. 13).
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.
Claim(s) 22 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Jiang et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200119889 A1), hereafter referred to as Jiang.
In regard to Claim 22, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the first frame.
Noh fails to teach a reception of the first frame is interfered by the transmission of the second STA, and wherein the first STA is incapable to perform reception operation due to the transmission of the second STA.
Jiang teaches a reception of the first frame is interfered by the transmission of the second STA (terminal self-interference refers to interference generated by signals transmitted by the user terminal itself due to non-ideality of radio frequency devices, such as received signals of the user terminal itself being affected by high-order signal components, Para. 3), and wherein the first STA is incapable to perform reception operation due to the transmission of the second STA (when the downlink packet loss rate is greater than the preset second threshold, determining that the user terminal experiences terminal self-interference, Para. 71. The user terminal sends an uplink signal to the LTE base station in the 1.8 GHz spectrum, and receives a downlink signal sent by the NR base station in the 3.5 GHz spectrum, then the uplink signal generates terminal self-interference to the downlink signal. That is, the uplink signal is an interference source link, and the downlink signal is an interfered link, Para. 93, FIG. 5).
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 Jiang with the teachings of Noh since Jiang provides a technique for determining self-interference of a terminal with respect to packet loss, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit a terminal to calculate loss rate for a packet as related to self-interference of the terminal.
In regard to Claim 32, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the first frame.
Noh fails to teach a reception of the first frame is interfered by the transmission of the second STA, and wherein the first STA is incapable to perform reception operation due to the transmission of the second STA.
Jiang teaches a reception of the first frame is interfered by the transmission of the second STA (terminal self-interference refers to interference generated by signals transmitted by the user terminal itself due to non-ideality of radio frequency devices, such as received signals of the user terminal itself being affected by high-order signal components, Para. 3), and wherein the first STA is incapable to perform reception operation due to the transmission of the second STA (when the downlink packet loss rate is greater than the preset second threshold, determining that the user terminal experiences terminal self-interference, Para. 71. The user terminal sends an uplink signal to the LTE base station in the 1.8 GHz spectrum, and receives a downlink signal sent by the NR base station in the 3.5 GHz spectrum, then the uplink signal generates terminal self-interference to the downlink signal. That is, the uplink signal is an interference source link, and the downlink signal is an interfered link, Para. 93, FIG. 5).
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 Jiang with the teachings of Noh since Jiang provides a technique for determining self-interference of a terminal with respect to packet loss, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit a terminal to calculate loss rate for a packet as related to self-interference of the terminal.
Claim(s) 27, 33 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Rajakarunanayake et al. (Pub. No.: US 20090092152 A1), hereafter referred to as Rajakarunanayake.
In regard to Claim 27, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the first frame.
Noh fails to teach a packet corresponding to the first frame is excluded from a queue of the first device.
Rajakarunanayake teaches a packet corresponding to the first frame is excluded from a queue of the first device (If the IP STB client 204 determines that only one data packet is lost, then a checksum may be computed excluding the lost data packet from the holding packet buffer, Para. 37, FIG. 2).
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 Rajakarunanayake with the teachings of Noh since Rajakarunanayake provides a technique for excluding packets from buffers, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit packets associated with special conditions to be excluded from buffers when doing so enhances communication integrity.
In regard to Claim 33, as presented in the rejection of Claim 31, Noh teaches the first AP affiliated with the first device.
Noh fails to teach the processor further causes the first device to: transmit, by the first AP affiliated with the first device, the second frame in the first link when the second frame exists in a queue.
Rajakarunanayake teaches the processor further causes the device to: transmit, by the first AP affiliated with the first device, the second frame in the first link when the second frame exists in a queue (The application block 604 may be enabled to process the plurality of stored data packets and queue the plurality of data packets to be transmitted in the plurality of AV data buffers 608, Para. 62, FIG. 6. The driver 606 may be enabled to copy or DMA the received plurality of data packets to a plurality of network packet buffers to transmit the plurality of data packets to the plurality of clients, Para. 63, FIG. 6).
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 Rajakarunanayake with the teachings of Noh since Rajakarunanayake provides a technique for excluding packets from buffers, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit packets associated with special conditions to be excluded from buffers when doing so enhances communication integrity.
In regard to Claim 37, as presented in the rejection of Claim 31, Noh teaches the first frame.
Noh fails to teach a packet corresponding to the first frame is excluded from a queue of the first device.
Rajakarunanayake teaches a packet corresponding to the first frame is excluded from a queue of the first device (If the IP STB client 204 determines that only one data packet is lost, then a checksum may be computed excluding the lost data packet from the holding packet buffer, Para. 37, FIG. 2).
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 Rajakarunanayake with the teachings of Noh since Rajakarunanayake provides a technique for excluding packets from buffers, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit packets associated with special conditions to be excluded from buffers when doing so enhances communication integrity.
Claim(s) 29 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Liu et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170026073 A1), hereafter referred to as Liu.
In regard to Claim 29, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the first link.
Noh fails to teach a pair of the first link and the second link is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair in which simultaneous transmission and reception to the second device is impossible, the first device is an AP multi-link device (MLD), the second device is a STA MLD, and a third device is a STA MLD.
Liu teaches a pair of the first link and the second link is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair in which simultaneous transmission and reception to the second device is impossible, the first device is an AP multi-link device (MLD), the second device is a STA MLD, and a third device is a STA MLD (a base station 101 and M user terminals 102, where the base station 101 has wireless connections with the M user terminals 102, Para. 100, FIG. 1. Use the primary carrier and the secondary carrier non-simultaneously to perform uplink/downlink transmission independently, Para. 113).
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 Liu with the teachings of Noh since Liu provides a technique for a system of wireless devices to non-simultaneously to perform uplink/downlink transmission independently with respect to different carriers, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit robust communications through the utilization of multiple carriers by non-simultaneously transmitting and receiving in different carriers.
In regard to Claim 39, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the first link.
Noh fails to teach a pair of the first link and the second link is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair in which simultaneous transmission and reception to the second device is impossible, the first device is an AP multi-link device (MLD), the second device is a STA MLD, and a third device is a STA MLD.
Liu teaches a pair of the first link and the second link is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair in which simultaneous transmission and reception to the second device is impossible, the first device is an AP multi-link device (MLD), the second device is a STA MLD, and a third device is a STA MLD (a base station 101 and M user terminals 102, where the base station 101 has wireless connections with the M user terminals 102, Para. 100, FIG. 1. Use the primary carrier and the secondary carrier non-simultaneously to perform uplink/downlink transmission independently, Para. 113).
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 Liu with the teachings of Noh since Liu provides a technique for a system of wireless devices to non-simultaneously to perform uplink/downlink transmission independently with respect to different carriers, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit robust communications through the utilization of multiple carriers by non-simultaneously transmitting and receiving in different carriers.
Claim(s) 41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh in view of Ahn et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170188336 A1), hereafter referred to as Ahn.
In regard to Claim 41, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the method.
Noh fails to teach in response to gaining the right to initiate the transmission, transmitting, to a third STA affiliated with a third device, a third frame during the first condition being satisfied in case that a second condition is unsatisfied, wherein the second condition is satisfied in case of a lack of availability of the third frame in a queue, and wherein transmission of the third frame is not interfered with the second STA affiliated with the second device or the third frame that does not interfere with the second STA affiliated with the second device.
Ahn teaches in response to gaining the right to initiate the transmission, transmitting, to a third STA affiliated with a third device, a third frame during the first condition being satisfied in case that a second condition is unsatisfied, wherein the second condition is satisfied in case of a lack of availability of the third frame in a queue, and wherein transmission of the third frame is not interfered with the second STA affiliated with the second device or the third frame that does not interfere with the second STA affiliated with the second device (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 42, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the method.
Noh fails to teach the transmitting the second frame comprises: transmitting, by the first AP affiliated with the first device, the second frame in the first link when the second frame exists in the queue.
Ahn teaches the transmitting the second frame comprises: transmitting, by the first AP affiliated with the first device, the second frame in the first link when the second frame exists in the queue (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 43, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the method.
Noh fails to teach the third device is a simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) device capable of simultaneous transmit and receive, or a NSTR device which is not interfered because a fourth STA affiliated with the third device does not transmit a fourth frame.
Ahn teaches the third device is a simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) device capable of simultaneous transmit and receive, or a NSTR device which is not interfered because a fourth STA affiliated with the third device does not transmit a fourth frame (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 44, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Noh teaches the method.
Noh fails to teach the first device includes the first AP operating in the first link and affiliated with the first device and a second AP operating in the second link and affiliated with the first device, wherein the second device includes the first STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the second device and the second STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the second device, and wherein the third device includes the third STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the third device and the fourth STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the third device.
Ahn teaches the first device includes the first AP operating in the first link and affiliated with the first device and a second AP operating in the second link and affiliated with the first device, wherein the second device includes the first STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the second device and the second STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the second device, and wherein the third device includes the third STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the third device and the fourth STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the third device (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 45, as presented in the rejection of Claim 31, Noh teaches the first device.
Noh fails to teach the processer further causes the first device to:in response to gaining the right to initiate the transmission, transmit, to a third STA affiliated with a third device, a third frame during the first condition being satisfied in case that a second condition is unsatisfied, wherein the second condition is satisfied in case of a lack of availability of the third frame in a queue, and wherein transmission of the third frame is not interfered with the second STA affiliated with the second device or the third frame that does not interfere with the second STA affiliated with the second device.
Ahn teaches the processer further causes the first device to:in response to gaining the right to initiate the transmission, transmit, to a third STA affiliated with a third device, a third frame during the first condition being satisfied in case that a second condition is unsatisfied, wherein the second condition is satisfied in case of a lack of availability of the third frame in a queue, and wherein transmission of the third frame is not interfered with the second STA affiliated with the second device or the third frame that does not interfere with the second STA affiliated with the second device (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 46, as presented in the rejection of Claim 31, Noh teaches the first device.
Noh fails to teach the second frame is transmitted to a third STA affiliated with a third device, and wherein the third device is a simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) device capable of simultaneous transmit and receive, or the third device is a NSTR device which is not interfered because a fourth STA affiliated with the third device does not transmit a fourth frame.
Ahn teaches the second frame is transmitted to a third STA affiliated with a third device, and wherein the third device is a simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) device capable of simultaneous transmit and receive, or the third device is a NSTR device which is not interfered because a fourth STA affiliated with the third device does not transmit a fourth frame (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
In regard to Claim 47, as presented in the rejection of Claim 31, Noh teaches the first device.
Noh fails to teach the first device includes the first AP operating in the first link and affiliated with the first device and a second AP operating in the second link and affiliated with the first device, wherein the second device includes the first STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the second device and the second STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the second device, and wherein the third device includes the third STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the third device and the fourth STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the third device.
Ahn teaches the first device includes the first AP operating in the first link and affiliated with the first device and a second AP operating in the second link and affiliated with the first device, wherein the second device includes the first STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the second device and the second STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the second device, and wherein the third device includes the third STA operating in the first link and affiliated with the third device and the fourth STA operating in the second link and affiliated with the third device (A terminal that performs a wireless LAN communication checks whether a channel is busy by performing carrier sensing before transmitting data, Para. 81, FIG. 6. When a specific terminal successfully accesses the channel, the corresponding terminal may transmit data through the channel. The respective terminals that perform the wireless LAN communication may avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel, Para. 83, FIG. 6).
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 Ahn with the teachings of Noh since Ahn provides a technique for a terminal to transmit data and avoid interference between itself and multiple other terminals, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Noh to permit multiple wireless devices to exist in a macro area and to avoid interference between the wireless devices while operating in the macro area.
Response to Arguments
I. New Citations of Reference Responsive to Amendment
Noh teaches in Para. 89 and FIG. 13: “a macro base station may perform wireless communication with an X UE and an X′ UE in a macro area (32) by using a licensed band carrier and be connected with multiple radio remote heads (RRHs) through an X2 interface. … Each RRH may perform wireless communication with an X UE or an X′ UE in a predetermined area (31) by using an unlicensed band carrier” (emphasis added). Noh teaches in Para. 137 and FIG. 17: “The base station performs data transmission based on the back-off procedure performed independently for each carrier” (emphasis added). A base station of Noh that is connected through an X2 interface to RRHs each using an unlicensed band carrier, and that performs data transmission based on the back-off procedure performed independently for each carrier, is substantively the same as the first AP affiliated with the first device that has gained the right to initiate transmission based on the first backoff operation of Claim 21.
II. Arguments for the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 9 of the Remarks presents the argument that First, Noh discloses a different interference. Noh merely discloses that an interference on a fourth component carrier (CC) occurs prior to a time point B1, at which the backoff operations on a first CC and a second CC are completed. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 21 recites: “wherein the first condition is satisfied in a case of occurring interference to reception on the first link caused by transmission of a second frame at a second STA affiliated with the second device in a second link of the multi-link” (emphasis added). Claim 21 does not clearly require a specific time in which interference is occurring in relation to a timing of a backoff operation. Claim 21 only requires interference occurring on the first link caused by a frame transmission in a second link. As a result, interference occurring in the fourth CC of Noh caused by 40MHz Wi-Fi transmission in a third CC, is substantively the same as a case of occurring interference to reception on the first link caused by transmission of a second frame at a second STA affiliated with the second device in a second link of Claim 21.
Page 9 of the Remarks presents the argument that In other words, in Noh, when the backoff operations on the first CC and the second CC are completed and the transmission right is obtained, there is no interference on the fourth CC. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 21 does not require an interference must occur at a time after a backoff operation is completed. In other words, Claim 21 does not clearly require that a first condition is satisfied (i.e. interference on the first link) only at a time after a time point when a back-off is completed.
Claim 21 recites: “gaining, by the first AP affiliated with the first device, a right to initiate transmission by completing the first backoff operation; selecting, by the first AP affiliated with the first device that has gained the right to initiate transmission based on the first backoff operation, to not transmit a first frame to a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device in the first link in a case that a first condition is satisfied” (emphasis added). Claim 21 does not require that “a first condition is satisfied” occurs only at a time after completion of the first backoff operation. Although the first AP is selecting to not transmit after completing the first backoff operation, this does not require that the first condition itself is satisfied only at a time after a time point when the first backoff operation is completed. Claim 21 permits the interpretation where a first condition is satisfied (i.e. interference on the first link) during the first backoff operation, and the first AP then selects to not transmit after completion of the first backoff operation. In other words, Claim 21 requires that the first AP must select to not transmit after completion of the first backoff operation, but Claim 21 does not require that a first condition being satisfied (i.e. interference on the first link) must occur only after completion of the first backoff operation.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that Second, Noh fails to disclose an interference is associated with a device intended to receive data transmitted on the first CC or the second CC. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 21 only requires “a first link of the multi-link” and “a second link of the multi-link”, which are respectively taught by a fourth CC and a third CC of Noh. Claim 21 does not completely exclude the existence of other links.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that As noted above, Noh merely discloses that the interference occurs on the fourth CC. See Noh, paragraphs [0136]-[0140] and FIG. 17(c). This is different from the subject matter of claim 21, in which in a situation where the first AP affiliated with the first device intends to transmit a first frame to a first STA affiliated with the second device over the first link, interference with reception on the first link occurs due to transmission by a second STA affiliated with the second device. This argument is not persuasive. Noh teaches in cited Para. 91: “conventional equipments (e.g., wireless LAN (Wi-Fi) equipments)” (emphasis added). FIG. 17(c) of Noh shows a time interval of interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi in 4th CC, where the interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi is associated with the 3rd CC, which is a Carrier not used by the base station. Interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi in the 4th CC of Noh caused by conventional Wi-Fi equipments associated with the 3rd CC that’s not used by the base station, is substantively the same as occurring interference to reception on the first link caused by transmission of a second frame at a second STA affiliated with the second device in a second link of Claim 21.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that Third, Noh discloses a different cause of transmission delay. In Noh, transmission on the first and second CCs is delayed due to interference occurring on the fourth CC, rather than interference within the first and second CCs themselves. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 21 requires only “a case of occurring interference to reception on the first link caused by transmission of a second frame at a second STA affiliated with the second device in a second link”, where “a first link of the multi-link” and “a second link of the multi-link” are respectively taught by a fourth CC and a third CC of Noh. Claim 21 does not completely exclude the existence of other links, and Claim 21 does not require interference in other links besides the “first link”. If the Specification of the Application includes features of causing a transmission delay with respect to interference involving other links, which are not taught by Noh, such features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 21.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that In contrast, in the instant application, transmission on the first link is delayed because transmission on the second link causes interference on the first link. This argument is not persuasive. FIG. 17(c) of Noh shows a time interval of interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi in 4th CC, where the interference of 40MHz Wi-Fi is associated with the 3rd CC. Noh teaches in Para. 137 and FIG. 17: “B2 indicates a back-off completion time delayed due to interference during the back-off” (emphasis added). A back-off of a transmission further delayed in the 4th CC of Noh due to interference, is substantively the same as not transmit a first frame to a first station affiliated with a second device in the first link in a case that a first condition is satisfied of Claim 21.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that In other words, when the first device using two links completes the first backoff operation on the first link and the first AP acquires the right to initiate transmission, the first AP does not transmit the first frame if the first condition is satisfied (i.e., interference occurs due to transmission on the second link). This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that Claim 21 does not require a specific time when the first condition itself must be satisfied, particularly in relation to a time of completion for the first backoff operation. As a result, the first condition of Claim 21 can be satisfied (i.e. interference on the first link) during the first backoff operation, and then the first AP selects to not transmit a first frame after having gained the right to initiate transmission based on the first backoff operation. Claim 21 does not require that the first condition is satisfied (i.e. interference on the first link) only at a time after the first backoff operation is completed.
Page 10 of the Remarks presents the argument that When the state changes such that the first condition is no longer satisfied, the first device performs a backoff operation (i.e., a second backoff operation) again on the first link. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 21 does not contain the words state, changes, change, changed, or changing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm ET.
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, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
4-17-2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477