DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1, 20, 22, and 24 have been amended; No claim(s) have been canceled; No claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-25 are subject to examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for identifying…and mean for causing the wireless communication device to…” in claim 24 and “means for causing the wireless communication device to operate…” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 8-9, 16, 18-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PEFKIANAKIS et al. (US 20190069208 A1), hereby referred to as PEFK.
Claim 1:
PEFK teaches an apparatus comprising logic and circuitry configured to cause a wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 1 the apparatus being a wireless communication device) to: identify a link block event comprising a line of sight (LoS) blocking of a millimeterWave (mmWave) wireless communication link between a mmWave wireless communication station (STA) of the wireless communication device and an other wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 1 wherein the wireless communication device is a wireless STA capable of mmW with other wireless devices and FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) wherein LOS is identified in mmWave link between wireless devices); and based on the link block event comprising the LoS blocking of the mmWave wireless communication link, communicate with the other wireless communication device over a sub 10 Gigahertz (GHz) (sub-10GHz) wireless communication link between a sub-10GHz STA of the wireless communication device and the other wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”) and para 38 (“…the WLAN transmission channel can include…2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands.”) wherein communication is switched to sub-10GHz, wherein the wireless device is a sub-10GHz STA as it can communicate in such bands).
Claim 8:
PEFK teaches The apparatus of claim 1 configured to cause the wireless communication device to: identify the link block event based on an identified failure of a data transmission from the mmWave STA of the wireless communication device to the other wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) and para 8 (:…LOS may refer to a level of obstruction…”) wherein LOS is identified in mmWave link between wireless devices, and the amount of LOS blockage and/or SNR causing the switch is the failure of data transmission); and based on the link block event, operate the sub-I0GHz STA of the wireless communication device to transmit the data transmission to the other wireless communication device over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”) and para 38 (“…the WLAN transmission channel can include…2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands.”) wherein communication is switched to sub-10GHz, wherein the wireless device is a sub-10GHz STA as it can communicate in such bands).
Claim 9:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1 configured to cause the wireless communication device to: identify the link block event based on an identified failure to receive an expected data transmission from the other wireless communication device over the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) and para 8 (:…LOS may refer to a level of obstruction…”) wherein the LOS blockage is based on a failure to receive expected data transmission below an expected SNR difference); and based on the link block event, operate the sub-10GHz STA of the wireless communication device to receive the data transmission from the other wireless communication device over the sub-10Ghz wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”) and para 38 (“…the WLAN transmission channel can include…2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands.”) wherein communication is switched to sub-10GHz, wherein the wireless device is a sub-10GHz STA as it can communicate in such bands).
Claim 16:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, configured to cause the wireless communication device to identify the link block event based on an identified predefined change of a link condition corresponding to the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) wherein the predefined change is the predetermined threshold).
Claim 18:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sub-10GHz wireless communication channel comprises a sub-7GHz channel (PEFK: para 38 (“…the WLAN transmission channel can include…2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands.”) where these are sub-7GHz bands).
Claim 19:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the mmWave wireless communication channel comprises a 60GHz channel (PEFK: para 1 (“…millimeter-wave range…such as 60 GHz standards…”)).
Claim 20:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1 comprising at least one radio to communicate over the mmWave wireless communication link and the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (PEFK FIG. 3 item 322-324 wherein mmWave and sub-10GHz are used for communication and measurement of SNR).
Claim 21:
PEFK teaches The apparatus of claim 20 comprising one or more antennas connected to the radio, and a processor to execute instructions of an operating system of the wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 330 wherein an antenna is inherently required to send network traffic and perform the method).
Claim 22:
PEFK teaches A product comprising one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising computer-executable instructions operable to, when executed by at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to cause a wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 1 item 102 the processor and item 104 the storage with instructions).
Claim 24:
PEFK teaches an apparatus for a wireless communication device. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 10-12, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEFK in view of NAIK et al. (US 20230199641 A1) (see 892 12/03/2025), hereby referred to as NAIK.
Claim 2:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, setup communication over the mmWave wireless communication link and setup communication over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (PEFK: para 17 (“…SNR of the millimeter-wave link and the SNR of the WLAN transmission channel.”) wherein mmWave and WLAN/sub-10 GHz links are set up for communication), operate the mmWave STA of the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device over the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 322 (“Determining a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a millimeter-wave link”) wherein communication over mmWave is measured), based on identifying the link block event, operate the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”)).
However, PEFK does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to: setup a first Service Period (SP), and a second SP, wherein the second SP at least partially overlaps with the first SP; operate the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device during the first SP; and based on identifying during the first SP, operate the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device during the second SP.
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the apparatus (NAIK: FIG. 5 wherein the apparatus can also be an access point, and the wireless communication device/non-AP MLD communicates via STAs to the other wireless communication device/AP MLD via access points Aps), configured to cause the wireless communication device to: setup a first Service Period (SP) over the first wireless communication link, and a second SP over the second wireless communication link, wherein the second SP at least partially overlaps with the first SP (NAIK: FIG. 5 and para 66 (“…may operate on the 2.4 GHz…5GHz…6GHz…”) wherein non-AP MLD communicates via STAs to the AP MLD via access points APs over links, such as sub 10GHz; FIG. 9B and FIG. 9C wherein there is at least a first SP and a second SP which overlap); operate the first STA of the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device over the first wireless communication link during the first SP (NAIK: FIG. 7A-7B and FIG. 8A-8B wherein communication is operated over a first STA during the first SP); and based on identifying during the first SP, operate the second STA of the wireless communication device to communicate with the other wireless communication device over the second wireless communication link during the second SP (NAIK: FIG. 9B-C, para 101 (“the non-AP MLD may perform a channel comparison operation that compares the channel conditions associated with Link1 and Link2 and indicates which of the communication links has the superior (or more favorable) channel conditions…”), and para 126 (“…an AP MLD may schedule announced overlapping SPs for a non-AP MLD operating in the EMLSR mode or on the EMLMR links…scheduling announced overlapping SPs may allow the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD to perform data exchanges during the overlapping SPs on an optimal communication link…may dynamically select the optimal communication link…”) wherein based on channel condition event, switching links to a different STA, such as a sub-10GHz STA, in an overlapping second SP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with switching based on identifying blockage of NAIK, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-NAIK, for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 6:
PEFK-NAIK teaches the apparatus of claim 2, configured to cause the wireless communication device to setup the first SP as a main SP for communication with the other wireless communication device, and to setup the second SP as a backup SP to be activated based on the link block event (NAIK: FIG. 7A-B & FIG. 8A-B wherein there is a main SP on a first link and a backup SP on the second link which is switched to during the link block event; FIG. 9B-9C wherein the first and second SP/main and backup SP are overlapping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the service periods of NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 7:
PEFK-NAIK teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first SP comprises a first Target Wake Time (TWT) SP over the mmWave wireless communication link, and the second SP comprises a second TWT SP over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (NAIK: FIG. 5 and FIG. 9B-C wherein there is first TWT SP over a first link and a second TWT SP over a sub-10GHz link) (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 322 (“Determining a first signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a millimeter-wave link”) wherein communication over the first link is in mmWave range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the service periods of NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 10:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to operate at an Enhanced Multi-Link Single Radio (EMLSR) mode to simultaneously listen over both the mmWave wireless communication link and the sub-10Ghz wireless communication link.
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to operate at an Enhanced Multi-Link Single Radio (EMLSR) mode to simultaneously listen over both the mmWave wireless communication link and the sub- 10Ghz wireless communication link (NAIK: para 33 (“…some non-AP MLDs may communicate with the AP MLD on only one of the communication links at any given time, for example, in accordance with…EMLSR…”) wherein the wireless communication device can use EMLSR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the switching based on identifying blockage of NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 11:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to switch the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device from a low power state to an active state based on the link block event.
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches configured to cause the wireless communication device to switch the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device from a low power state to an active state based on the link block event (NAIK: para 67 (“…the STA 522 must be in a power save mode any time the STA 524 is active.”) and para 110 (“…non-AP MLD to transition from an active mode on Link2 to an active mode on Link1.”) wherein a link that is switched to, transitions to an active mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the switching based on identifying blockage of NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 12:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, configured to cause the wireless communication device to operate the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device to transmit over the sub-10GHz link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”)), but does not explicitly disclose a transmission configured to indicate the link block event to the other wireless communication device.
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a transmission configured to indicate the link block event to the other wireless communication device (NAIK: FIG. FIG. 12B, para 101 (“the non-AP MLD may perform a channel comparison operation that compares the channel conditions associated with Link1 and Link2 and indicates which of the communication links has the superior (or more favorable) channel conditions…”), and para 147 (“…non-AP MLD may initiate the TWT transfer by transmitting a TWT transfer indication…on Link2…”) wherein the wireless communication device identifies and indicates the link block event/channel condition, wherein an indication can be the transfer indication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the switching based on identifying blockage of NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim 23:
PEFK-NAIK teaches the product of claim 22. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim 25:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 24. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 12 above.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEFK in view of NAIK, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-NAIK, and in further view of CHU et al. (US 20240155715 A1) (see 892 12/03/2025), hereby referred to as CHU.
Claim 3:
PEFK-NAIK teaches the apparatus of claim 2, configured to cause the wireless communication device to, based on the link block event, operate the sub-10GHz STA of the wireless communication device (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 320 (“Rerouting Network Traffic From The Millimeter-Wave Link to the WLAN transmission channel in response to identifying the LOS blockage of the Network Signal”)), but does not explicitly disclose to transmit Beamforming (BF) information to the other wireless communication device over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link.
CHU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to transmit Beamforming (BF) information to the other wireless communication device over the sub-10GHz wireless communication link (CHU: FIG. 3-4, para 58 (“…NDPA…indicates whether the sounding is done through cross-link…”), para 60 (“…after a backoff period expires…AP1 transmits an NDPA 326 to STA1 through the non-mmWave link…is acknowledged by…STA1. The beamformer and the beamformee…AP2 and STA2…negotiate a delay time 330 required between the end of frame exchange of the NDPA/ACK and the start of sounding in an mmWave link…”), and para 61 (…Request to send (RTS)/clear to send (CTS) is required by beamformer transmitting an NDPA…through the non-mmWave link.”) wherein BF information is transmitted over sub-10 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK-NAIK with CHU, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-NAIK-CHU, for the benefit of efficient and proper signaling (CHU: FIG. 2).
Claim 4:
PEFK-NAIK-CHU teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the BF information comprises an indication of a BF configuration for a subsequent transmission over the mmWave wireless communication link (CHU: FIG. 3-4 and para 9-10 (“…the control or management information regarding the mmWave link includes…announcement information regarding the mmWave link…includes a null data packet announcement (NDPA) or a request to send (RTS).”) wherein BF configuration is the announcement information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK-NAIK with CHU for the benefit of efficient and proper signaling (CHU: FIG. 2).
Claim 5:
PEFK-NAIK-CHU teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the BF information comprises BF training setup information to setup one or more BF training windows for the mmWave wireless communication link (CHU: FIG. 3-4 and para 9-10 (“…the control or management information regarding the mmWave link includes…announcement information regarding the mmWave link…includes a null data packet announcement (NDPA) or a request to send (RTS).”) wherein BF configuration is the announcement information for setting up training windows/sector sweeps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK-NAIK with CHU for the benefit of efficient and proper signaling (CHU: FIG. 2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEFK in view of POLLOCK et al. (US 20210075850 A1) (see 892 12/03/2025), hereby referred to as POLLOCK.
Claim 13:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, configured to cause the wireless communication device to identify the link block event based on an expected transmission from the other wireless communication device over the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) and para 8 (“…LOS may refer to a level of obstruction…”) wherein LOS is identified in mmWave link between wireless devices, and the amount of LOS blockage and/or SNR causing the switch is the failure of data transmission), but does not explicitly disclose based on an identified failure of receipt of an expected transmission.
POLLOCK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches based on an identified failure of receipt of an expected transmission (POLLACK: para 48 (“The electronic device 102 may determine that a quality of the primary connection satisfies a quality degradation condition, such as based on the exchanged link quality metrics…the one or more of the packet loss rate, the round trip rate, the amount of time without receiving any packets, or the signal to noise ratio, has exceeded a predetermined threshold value.”) and 51 (“…may utilize the established secondary connection…”) wherein based on identifying link block event based on failure of data transmission/reception, which is indicated at least by packet loss rate and/or the amount of time without receiving any packets, links are switched).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK with POLLOCK for the benefit of improved performance (POLLOCK: para 12).
Claim 14:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, configured to cause the wireless communication device to identify the link block event based on an identified failure of a transmission from the mmWave STA of the wireless communication device over the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328 (“Proactively identifying a Line-of-Sight (LOS) blockage of a Network signal transmitted on a millimeter-wave link based on a difference between the first SNR and the second SNR, wherein the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold”) and para 8 (“…LOS may refer to a level of obstruction…”) wherein LOS is identified in mmWave link between wireless devices, and the amount of LOS blockage and/or SNR causing the switch is the failure of data transmission), but does not explicitly disclose an identified failure to receive an expected data transmission from the other wireless communication device.
POLLOCK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches based on an identified failure to receive an expected data transmission from the other wireless communication device (POLLACK: para 48 (“The electronic device 102 may determine that a quality of the primary connection satisfies a quality degradation condition, such as based on the exchanged link quality metrics…the one or more of the packet loss rate, the round trip rate, the amount of time without receiving any packets, or the signal to noise ratio, has exceeded a predetermined threshold value.”) and 51 (“…may utilize the established secondary connection…”) wherein based on identifying link block event based on failure of data transmission/reception, which is indicated at least by packet loss rate and/or the amount of time without receiving any packets, links are switched).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK with POLLOCK for the benefit of improved performance (POLLOCK: para 12).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEFK in view of POLLOCK, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-POLLOCK, and in further view of NAIK.
Claim 15:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1 configured to cause the wireless communication device to identify the link block event over the mmWave wireless communication link (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328), but does not explicitly teach based on an identified failure of receipt of a transmission from the other wireless communication device within a threshold time since a beginning of a Service Period (SP).
POLLOCK teaches based on an identified failure of receipt of a transmission from the other wireless communication device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK with POLLOCK for the benefit of improved performance (POLLOCK: para 12).
However, PEFK-POLLOCK does not explicitly disclose within a threshold time since a beginning of a Service Period (SP).
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a link block event since the beginning of the service period (NAIK: FIG. 7A-B and FIG. 8A-B, para 101 (“…channel conditions associated with each of the communications Link1 and Link2…suitable conditions may include…level of interference…bandwidth of the channel…MCS used…the non-AP MLD may perform a channel comparison operation that compares the channel conditions associated with Link1 and Link2 and indicates which of the communication links has the superior (or more favorable) channel conditions…”) wherein the channel condition/link blockage event is identified for a service period, including the beginning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK-POLLOCK with NAIK for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEFK in view of NAIK, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-NAIK, and in further view of KIM et al. (US 20250358879 A1) (see 892 12/03/2025), hereby referred to as KIM.
Claim 17:
PEFK teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the link block event comprises a Line of Sight blocking of a mmWave (PEFK: FIG. 3 item 328), but does not explicitly disclose configured to cause the wireless communication device to, based on the link block event, operate the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device to transmit to the other wireless communication device a recommendation to reduce an order of a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) for communication over the mmWave wireless communication link.
NAIK, in the same field of endeavor, teaches causing the wireless communication device to, based on the link block event, operate the sub-10Ghz STA of the wireless communication device reconfigure the mmWave wireless communication link (NAIK: FIG. FIG. 12B, para 101 (“the non-AP MLD may perform a channel comparison operation that compares the channel conditions associated with Link1 and Link2 and indicates which of the communication links has the superior (or more favorable) channel conditions…”), and para 147 (“…non-AP MLD may initiate the TWT transfer by transmitting a TWT transfer indication…on Link2…”) wherein the wireless communication device identifies and indicates the link block event/channel condition, and based on the event, reconfigure the link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified switching based on identifying LOS blockage of PEFK with the switching based on identifying blockage of NAIK, the combination hereby referred to as PEFK-NAIK, for the benefit of meeting latency, throughput, and timing requirements of low latency applications (NAIK: para 1-3).
However, PEFK-NAIK does not explicitly disclose to transmit to the other wireless communication device a recommendation to reduce an order of a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) for communication over another wireless communication link.
KIM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to transmit to the other wireless communication device a recommendation to reduce an order of a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) for communication over another wireless communication link (NAI: FIG. 4B, para 77 (“…using a low…(MCS) to reduce a reception error…using a low MCS may be referred to as a ‘low MCS frame’…”), para 108 (“The STA may change the multi-link parameter(s)…may include at least one of preferred MCS information…”) and para 114 (“The downlink frame on the first link may be generated based on a first MCS index, and the downlink frame on the second link may be generated based on a second MCS…The first MCS index may be higher than the second MCS index.”) wherein a lower MCS can be configured for a link by a different link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified PEFK-NAIK with KIM for the benefit of reducing reception error (KIM: para 77).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights