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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 10/17/2025.
Claim(s) 40-45, 47-58 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 40, 48, 49, 52, and 56-57 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 40-45, 47, 49-55, and 57-58 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 48 and 56 is/are allowed.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 40-43, 45, 52-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB_2542819_A_Romain in view of US_20120057651_A1_Kim (hereinafter, “Kim-51”).
Regarding claim 40, Romain discloses a method, comprising: occupying a first channel for data transmission between a first multi-link device and a second multi-link device for a first channel occupation period (Romain figures 9-10, the RTS/CTS exchange between STA1 and STA2 creates the TXOP), transmitting a measurement request to a subset of multi-link devices to perform channel measurements on at least two channels during the first channel occupation period, transmitting at least one data message to the second multi-link device during the first channel occupation period (Romain figures 9-10, the RTS triggers all STAs in the group to sense, i.e. measure, which channels are free, and is thus a measurement request), receiving, after transmission of the at least one data message, at least one channel status report from at least one multi-link device of the subset of multi-link devices during the first channel occupation period (Romain figures 9-10, "DATA”), wherein the at least one channel status report comprises channel status information of the at least two channels (Romain figure 9, the CTS's transmitted by STA3; or figure 10, the CTS's transmitted by STA4), and selecting a channel, among the at least two channels, for data transmission between the first multi-link device and a multi-link device for a second channel occupation period, (Romain page 22, line(s) 3-5, the TXOP is widened - herein the time frame for which widened part is valid is a "second channel occupation period), but does not disclose wherein the channel is selected randomly among a set of channels detected as unoccupied based at least partly on the at least one channel status report.
Kim-51 discloses wherein the channel is selected randomly among a set of channels detected as unoccupied based at least partly on the at least one channel status report (Kim-51 figure 8 step 820, and paragraph 23, “…The transmission method includes selecting a transmission channel from among unoccupied available channels…”, and paragraphs 81-84, and paragraph 85, “…Referring to FIG. 9, the channel state recognizing unit 520 checks whether or not one of upper and lower adjacent channels of each interference available channel is unoccupied (S910)”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim-51’s selecting a transmission channel from among unoccupied available channels based on channel interference information in Romain’s system to improve signal quality. This method for improving the system of Romain was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kim-51. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Romain and Kim-51 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 40.
Regarding claim 41, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, and Romain further discloses wherein the measurement request is transmitted before said occupying the first channel for data transmission (Romain figure 9, the RTS precedes the TXOP wherein data is transmitted).
Regarding claim 42, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, and Romain further discloses wherein the at least one channel status report is received from a third multi-link device (Romain figure 9, the CTS is receiving from STA3).
Regarding claim 43, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, and Romain further discloses wherein the measurement request, the at least one channel status report, and transmission of the at least one data message use same radio technology (Romain page 22, line(s) 18, wherein the (single) radio technology is 802.11 ac).
Regarding claim 45, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, and Romain further discloses wherein the channel is selected further on the basis of measurements performed by the first multi-link device (Romain figure 10, the STA 1 transmits RTS on all channels, imply it has sense, i.e. measured, the channels).
Regarding claim 52, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 40, and Romain further discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor, at least one memory including computer instructions, the at least one memory and the computer instructions being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (Romain figure 7, page 18 line(s) 21 - page 20 line(s) 14).
Regarding claim 53, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 42.
Regarding claim 54, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 45.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB_2542819_A_Romain in view of US_20120057651_A1_Kim (hereinafter, “Kim-51”) and US_10827423_B1_Manganiello.
Regarding claim 44, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, but do not disclose wherein transmission of the measurement request and reception of the at least one channel status report is performed via a first radio technology, and transmission of the at least one data message is performed via a second radio technology.
Manganiello discloses wherein transmission of the measurement request and reception of the at least one channel status report is performed via a first radio technology, and transmission of the at least one data message is performed via a second radio technology (Manganiello column 18 line(s) 61-63, “…control information can be transmitted via the first RAT, while data information (i.e. payloads, etc.) can be transmitted via the second RAT…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Manganiello’s control information can be transmitted via the first RAT, while data information can be transmitted via the second RAT in Romain and Kim-51’s system to improve data throughput, and to utilize existing infrastructure for performing control signaling operations (Manganiello column 18 line(s) 67- column 19 line(s) 5). This method for improving the system of Romain and Kim-51 was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Manganiello. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Romain, Kim-51, and Manganiello to obtain the invention as specified in claim 44.
Claim(s) 47 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB_2542819_A_Romain in view of US_20120057651_A1_Kim (hereinafter, “Kim-51”), and US_20220210834_A1_de la Oliva.
Regarding claim 47, Romain and Kim-51 disclose the method of claim 40, but do not disclose wherein the measurement request is comprised in system information within physical downlink control channel transmission, in a dedicated radio resource control signal, or in a groupcast message.
de la Oliva discloses wherein the measurement request is comprised in system information within physical downlink control channel transmission, in a dedicated radio resource control signal, or in a groupcast message (de la Oliva paragraph 93, “…using Groupcast with Retries (GCR) RTS/CTS, the RTS/CTS may be extended for groupcast transmission, enabling all stations in a group to reserve air time. The GCR RTS/CTS may need to address all stations in the group since hidden nodes may be present in the network and only the use of both RTS and CTS will safely block the Network Allocation Vector (NAV) of the rest of the stations of the network”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of de la Oliva’s using Groupcast with Retries (GCR) RTS/CTS in Romain and Kim-51’s system to enable all stations in a group to reserve air time (de la Oliva paragraph 93). This method for improving the system of Romain and Kim-51was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of de la Oliva. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Romain, Kim-51, and de la Oliva to obtain the invention as specified in claim 47.
Regarding claim 55, Romain, Kim-51, and de la Oliva disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 47.
Claim(s) 49-50, 57-58 is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230156840_A1_Chitrakar in view of US_20210067285_A1_Cariou and US_20210282186_A1_Cherian.
Regarding claim 49, Chitrakar discloses a method, comprising: receiving, from a first multi-link device, a measurement request to perform channel measurements on at least two channels during a first channel occupation period reserved for communication between the first multi-link device and a second multi-link device (Chitrakar figure 2, After step 210, all 3 links (link 1, link 2, link3) are setup for Non-AP MLD 204 and AP MLD 202. Therefore, the Non-AP MLD 204 occupies the 3 links at least during the steps 210 to 228. Steps 214 and 218, the AP MLD 202 transmits link measurement requests to the Non-AP MLD 204 to request link measurement on links 1 and 3), performing channel measurements during the first channel occupation period in response to the measurement request (Chitrakar figure 2, steps 214-220, and paragraph 52), and transmitting, to the first multi-link device during the first channel occupation period, a channel status report comprising channel status information based on the channel measurements (Chitrakar figure 2, steps 216, 220), but does not disclose multi-link device equipped with two or more radio access technologies (RATs), receiving a measurement request to perform channel measurements on at least two channels, performing channel measurements in response to received measurement request, and wherein a first RAT of the two or more RATs is configured to enable a hidden node prevention mode and a second RAT of the two or more RATs is configured for data transmission or reception.
Cariou disclsoes multi-link device equipped with two or more radio access technologies (RATs) ((Cariou paragraph 98), receiving a measurement request to perform channel measurements on at least two channels (Cariou paragraph 24, “…the initiator may send an RTS or another type of frame to a responder to request reported Noise Level measurements on one or more 20 MHz channels, and/or on one or more RUs…”), and performing channel measurements in response to received measurement request (Cariou paragraph 22, “…the responder may report a detected and measured Noise Level per 20 MHz on one or multiple 20 MHz channels. The responder may measure the Noise Level right before the transmission of the frame carrying an indication of the Noise Level…”, and paragraph 24, “…the measurement may be based on the reception of the RTS or other request frame”), but does not disclose wherein a first RAT of the two or more RATs is configured to enable a hidden node prevention mode and a second RAT of the two or more RATs is configured for data transmission or reception.
Cherian discloses wherein a first RAT of the two or more RATs is configured to enable a hidden node prevention mode and a second RAT of the two or more RATs is configured for data transmission or reception (Cherian paragraph 114, “In block 1006, the process 1000 optionally includes transmitting a medium reservation message on the first link 616 reserving a TXOP. The AP may transmit a CTS message, which may be received by additional devices (such as hidden nodes), thereby preventing collisions during the TXOP 714”, paragraph 124, “…in block 1112, the process 1000 may include transmitting a second PPDU on the second link 626. In an aspect, for example, the second transmitting component 945 may transmit a second PPDU on the second link 626…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Cariou’s the initiator may send a request frame to request measurement report for one or more channels, and the responder may feedback a measurement report for one or more channels based on the request frame, and Cherian’s using RTS/CTS technique in first link in Chitrakar’s system to reduce overhead signalling, and to prevent collision with hidden nodes. This method for improving the system of Chitrakar was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Cariou and Cherian. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian to obtain the invention as specified in claim 49.
Regarding claim 50, Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian disclose the method of claim 49, and Chitrakar further discloses further comprising: receiving, during a second channel occupation period after the first channel occupation period, at least one data message from the first multi-link device at a channel based on the channel status report (Chitrakar figure 2, steps 228, frames will be exchanged on any/all links for the subsequently transmission opportunities until condition changed).
Regarding claim 57, Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 49, and Chitrakar further discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor, at least one memory including computer instructions, the at least one memory and the computer instructions being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (Chitrakar figure 27, paragraphs 8, 137).
Regarding claim 58, Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 50.
Claim(s) 51 is/are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230156840_A1_Chitrakar in view of US_20210067285_A1_Cariou, US_20210282186_A1_Cherian and US_20230179686_A1_Kim (hereinafter, “Kim-86”).
Regarding claim 51, Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian disclose the method of claim 49, but do not disclose wherein the measurement request indicates multi-link devices that should enable multi-link medium status reports for hidden node prevention.
Kim-86 discloses wherein the measurement request indicates multi-link devices that should enable multi-link medium status reports for hidden node prevention (Kim-86 paragraph 180, “…the RTS/CTS frame was used to solve the hidden node problem and could be used based on the size of transmission data. In the above-described embodiments, the RTS/CTS frame is to prevent transmission collision with the station to perform delayed transmission in order to protect transmission or reception of the non-STR multi-link device”. The RTS is corresponding to the request and the CTS is corresponding to the report).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kim-86’s the RTS/CTS frame was used to solve the hidden node problem in Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian’s system to reduce a transmission collision probability (Kim paragraph 177, 180). This method for improving the system of Chitrakar, Cariou and Cherian was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kim-86. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chitrakar, Cariou, Cherian and Kim-86 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 51.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 48 and 56 is/are allowed.
The art of record does not suggest the respective claim combinations together and nor would the respective claim combinations be obvious with: “wherein the first multi-link device has dedicated time and frequency resources during the first channel occupation period for reception of channel status reports and indicates the resources to the subset of the multi-link devices.” as stated in independent claim 48, and similar limitations as stated in independent claim 56.
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights