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 .
This office action is in response to remarks filed 12/23/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. No claims are added or cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 03-12-2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The document, “Hearing Notice dated December 23, 2025 for Indian Patent Application No. 202227074551 and its English translation.”, includes reference to three documents D1, D2, and D3 applied to the rejection. D1, D2, and D3 are not identified in this document nor are they listed in the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 12267900 B2, hereinafter “Jang”), in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 20180324849 A1, hereinafter “Asterjadhi”), in view of Kim (US 20230147636 A1, hereinafter “Kim ‘636”).
RE Claim 1, 8, Jang discloses a device or method:
A multi-link device (Col. 1 Ln. 46-60, Col. 5 Ln. 1-5, Col. 30 Ln. 31-48, Fig. 1) that uses a plurality of links (Col. 1 Ln. 46-60, Col. 30 Ln. 31-48), the device comprising:
a transceiver (Col. 5 Ln. 1-5, Fig. 1); and
a processor (Col. 5 Ln. 1-5, Fig. 1),
wherein an AC or a traffic identifier (TID) is mapped to the any one link, (TID values correspond to AC categories. Col. 31 Ln. 10-31; All TIDs are mapped for uplink/downlink. Col. 31 Ln. 32-37; TID-to-link mapping is mapped per AC. Col. 35 Ln. 42-58), wherein the multi-link device transmits a frame which includes traffic corresponding to the mapped AC or TID in the any one link (Multilink operation exchanging data and frames with TIDs and AC between AP MLD and non-AP MLD. Col. 35 Ln. 42-58, Fig. 22),
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to receive a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) including reverse direction (RD) grant and an access category (AC) constraint signaling from a station that is a transmission opportunity (TXOP) holder or a service period (SP) source in any one of the plurality of links, and
to transmit, based on the AC constraint signaling in the any one link, a second PPDU to the station in response to the first PPDU, and
in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that any TID is allowed as a TID of a data frame to be included in a second PPDU, and
the multi-link device includes a data frame in the second PPDU,
to include a data frame corresponding to a TID mapped to the any one link in the second PPDU, and
not to include a data frame corresponding to a TID that is not mapped to the any one link in the second PPDU,
However, Asterjadhi discloses:
wherein the processor (¶0099, Fig. 9:904) is configured to receive a first physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (¶0006) including reverse direction (RD) grant (¶¶0006, 0033) and an access category (AC) constraint signaling (Control subfield, AC. ¶0038, Fig. 2:212; RD initiator set AC constraint values. ¶0058) from a station that is a transmission opportunity (TXOP) holder (RD initiator, station, transmits RD grant to RD responder allocating TXOP resources. ¶0033, Fig. 1:126) or a service period (SP) source (RD grant may be transmitted during service period, SP. ¶0046, Fig. 3) in any one of the plurality of links (¶0028, ¶0032),
to include a data frame corresponding to a TID mapped to the any one link in the second PPDU (Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076), and
not to include a data frame corresponding to a TID that is not mapped to the any one link in the second PPDU (Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076), and
to transmit, in the any one link (AC subfield indicates to the STA to respond based on AC value. ¶0039), the second PPDU to the station in response to the first PPDU (RD Initiator set AC subfield value, RD responder transmits data frames, second PPDU, of only the same AC as received from RD initiator. ¶0067).
Jang and Asterjadhi do not explicitly disclose:
in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that any TID is allowed as a TID of a data frame to be included in a second PPDU, and
the multi-link device includes a data frame in the second PPDU,
However, Kim ‘636 discloses:
in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that any TID is allowed as a TID of a data frame to be included in a second PPDU (AP MLD transmits access category indicator, ACI. ¶0299; In case that the number of bits set to 1 in the ACI is zero and Delta TID subfield is set to 3, the signaling is for all 8 TIDs, maximum, for all ACs for traffic. ¶¶0340-0341, Table 9), and
the multi-link device includes a data frame in the second PPDU (ML setup with enabled links for ML communication. STA, non-AP MLD, performs frame exchanges through at least one of a plurality of links for at least one management frame, control frame, and a data frame. ¶0258; AP MLD and non-AP MLD transmits data frames with information on TID and ACs. ¶0261),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jang, configuration for multi-link multi-user operation by mapping AC and TID for links and frames in a multi-link communication setup, with the teachings of Asterjadhi, configuration for Reverse Direction operation using AC or TID to indicate frames for a single link, with the teachings of Kim ‘636, method of mapping AC indications with TID indications to select different traffic for multi-link network setup.
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the Reverse Direction method with a multi-link device to enable multiple links for RD operation to improve communication efficiency by reducing overhead signaling. (Jang: Abstract, Col. 1 Ln. 45 – Col. 2 Ln. 3; Asterjadhi: Abstract, ¶¶0006, 0009, Fig. 3; Kim ‘636: ¶¶0004-0005, 0048, 0260-0264, 0295-0296, 0339-0341, Table 9)
RE Claim 3, Jang discloses a device:
and the multi-link device includes a data frame in the second PPDU (Multilink operation exchanging data and frames with TIDs and AC between AP MLD and non-AP MLD. Col. 35 Ln. 42-58, Col. 31 Ln. 10-31, Fig. 22),
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that an AC or TID of a frame to be included in the second PPDU is restricted, the processor is configured to include, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to an AC or a TID that is mapped to the any one link and that has a priority higher than or equal to a priority of an AC or TID of a frame received from the station, and not to include, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to a TID or AC that is not mapped to the any one link or has a lower priority than the priority of the AC or TID of the frame received from the station.
However, Asterjadhi discloses:
wherein, in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that an AC or TID of a frame to be included in the second PPDU is restricted (Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID, restricted traffic, for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076; RD Initiator set AC subfield value, RD responder transmits data frames of only the same AC, restriction, as received from RD initiator. ¶0067), the processor is configured to include, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to an AC or a TID that is mapped to the any one link and that has a priority higher than or equal to a priority of an AC or TID of a frame received from the station (AC constraint indicates to SAT that a response to a RD grant contains RD data frames. RD data sent by STA in response must have data frames with the same or higher AC than received. ¶0039), and not to include, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to a TID or AC that is not mapped to the any one link (Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID, restricted traffic, for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076; RD Initiator set AC subfield value, RD responder transmits data frames of only the same AC, restriction, as received from RD initiator. ¶0067) or has a lower priority than the priority of the AC or TID of the frame received from the station (AC constraint indicates to SAT that a response to a RD grant contains RD data frames. RD data sent by STA in response must have data frames with the same or higher AC than received. ¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jang, mapping of AC and TID for multilink devices, with the teachings of Asterjadhi, specifying which TID, AC level, or AC priority is permitted for transmission. .
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the Reverse Direction method of selecting which data traffic is permitted per identification with a multi-link device to enable multiple links for RD operation to improve communication efficiency.
RE Claim 4, 11, Jang discloses a device or method:
The device, wherein, when the multi-link device receives a plurality of frames from the station (Management, control, or data frames include information on available TID. TID is related to priority of traffic data and corresponds to access categories, AC. Col. 31 Ln. 10-31),
the priority of the AC or TID of the frame received from the station is a lowest priority among priorities of the plurality of frames (TID corresponds to AC of which AC has multiple categories. The lowest category that may be assigned is AC_Background, AC_BK, as opposed to the highest as AC_Voice, AC_VO. Col. 31 Ln. 10-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jang, multilink devices, with the teachings of Asterjadhi, specifying which TID, AC level, or AC priority is permitted for transmission.
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the Reverse Direction method of selecting which data traffic is permitted per identification with a multi-link device to enable multiple links for RD operation to improve communication efficiency.
RE Claim 7, 14, Jang does not explicitly disclose a device or method:
The device, wherein the AC constraint signaling is included in a medium access control (MAC) header of a frame included in a PPDU that includes the RD grant.
However Asterjadhi discloses:
The device, wherein the AC constraint signaling is included in a medium access control (MAC) header of a frame included in a PPDU that includes the RD grant (Control field within a frame control of a MAC frame. Control subfield contains access category, AC, constraint subfield and a reverse direction grant, RD. ¶0038, Fig.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jang, mapping of AC for multilink devices, with the teachings of Asterjadhi, enabling RD operation via MAC frame for configuring AC constraint and RD grant.
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the MAC signaling of Reverse Direction method with a multi-link device to enable multiple links for RD operation to improve communication efficiency.
RE Claim 10, Jang discloses a method:
The method,
the multi-link device includes a data frame in the second PPDU (Multilink operation exchanging data and frames with TIDs and AC between AP MLD and non-AP MLD. Col. 35 Ln. 42-58, Col. 31 Ln. 10-31, Fig. 22)
Jang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transmitting the second PPDU to the station comprises including, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to an AC or a TID that is mapped to the any one link and that has a priority higher than or equal to a priority of an AC or a TID of a frame received from the station, and
not including, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to a TID or AC that is not mapped to the any one link or has a lower priority than the priority of the AC or TID of the frame received from the station, in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that an AC or a TID of a frame to be included in the second PPDU is restricted, and
However, Asterjadhi discloses:
wherein the transmitting the second PPDU to the station comprises including, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to an AC or a TID that is mapped to the any one link (Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076; All TIDs are mapped for uplink/downlink. Col. 31 Ln. 32-37; RD Initiator set AC subfield value, RD responder transmits data frames, second PPDU, of only the same AC as received from RD initiator. ¶006; ) and that has a priority higher than or equal to a priority of an AC or a TID of a frame received from the station AC constraint indicates to SAT that a response to a RD grant contains RD data frames. RD data sent by STA in response must have data frames with the same or higher AC than received. ¶0039), and
not including, in the second PPDU, a data frame corresponding to a TID or AC that is not mapped to the any one link (AC constraint indicates to SAT that a response to a RD grant contains RD data frames. RD data sent by STA in response must have data frames with the same or higher AC than received. ¶0039); Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID only for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076) or has a lower priority than the priority of the AC or TID of the frame received from the station (AC constraint indicates to SAT that a response to a RD grant contains RD data frames. RD data sent by STA in response must have data frames with the same or higher AC than received. ¶0039), in a case that the AC constraint signaling indicates that an AC or a TID of a frame to be included in the second PPDU is restricted (RD Initiator set AC subfield value, RD responder transmits data frames of only the same AC, restriction, as received from RD initiator. ¶0067; Requested TXOP duration for a link may be for a specified TID or for all TIDs/ACs, a restriction to specific traffic, for which the STA is requesting in a TXOP. ¶0076).
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Asterjadhi in view of Kim ‘636 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230199551 A1, hereinafter “Kim ‘551”).
RE Claim 5, 12, Jang and Asterjadhi do not explicitly disclose a device or method:
The device, wherein the processor regards an AC of a management frame as a predetermined value.
However, Kim ‘551 discloses:
The device, wherein the processor regards an AC of a management frame as a predetermined value. (AC corresponding to the management frame determined by QMF, Quality of Service Management Frame, policy. ¶0194; Default QMF Policy shown in Table 2. ¶0195. Default AC value is AC_VO. ¶0196)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the methods of Jang and Asterjadhi, multilink devices and Reverse Direction operation, with the teachings of Kim, setting a default value for AC in a management frame for MLD operation.
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the Reverse Direction method of selecting which data traffic is permitted per identification with a multi-link device to enable multiple links for RD operation to improve communication efficiency.
Claims 6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Asterjadhi in view of Kim ‘636 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20150288501 A1, hereinafter “Kwon”).
RE Claim 6, 13, Jang and Asterjadhi do not explicitly disclose a device or method:
The device, wherein, in a case of including a BlockAck frame in the second PPDU, the processor is configured to determine an AC of the BlockAck frame based on a TID field of the BlockAck frame, and
in a case of including a BlockAckReq frame in the second PPDU, the processor is configured to determine an AC of the BlockAckReq frame based on a TID field of the BlockAckReq frame.
However, Kwon discloses:
The device, wherein, in a case of including a BlockAck frame in the second PPDU (Receiving device transmits an ACK frame to the transmitting device. ¶0110, Fig. 6), the processor is configured to determine an AC of the BlockAck frame based on a TID field of the BlockAck frame (AC corresponds to a TID. TID associates MPDU, within a PPDU, with an appropriate AC. ¶0109; Transmitting device transmits PPDUs including MPDU with AC and TID assignments. Receiving device transmits ACK frame corresponding to those PPDUs. ¶0110 Fig. 6), and
in a case of including a BlockAckReq frame in the second PPDU (BlockAck Request and ACK policy. ¶0146, Table 1), the processor is configured to determine an AC of the BlockAckReq frame based on a TID field of the BlockAckReq frame. (AC corresponds to a TID. TID associates MPDU, within a PPDU, with an appropriate AC. ¶0109; Transmit BlockAck Request frame for the prior transmission of PPDU with assigned AC and TID information. ¶0154, Fig. 13)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to combine the methods of Jang and Asterjadhi , multilink devices and Reverse Direction operation, with the teachings of Kwon, configuration of BlockAck frames for MLD operation.
The motivation in doing so would be to combine the Reverse Direction method with BlockAck configurations for AC and TID further identifying PPDUs to improve communication efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20230107072 A1 Kim et al.
US 20190274166 A1 Seok et al.
US 20190261402 A1 Asterjadhi et al.
WO 2021228085 A1 Li et al.
The above references disclose various aspects of AC constraint and TID mapping for traffic management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. LANGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Eastern.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at 1 (571) 270-3125. 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.
/PAUL A. LANGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/JACKIE ZUNIGA ABAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469