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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,4-5,10,14,17 and 19 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,14 and 19 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/12/2026 on pages 10 of applicant's remark regarding claims 1,14,19, the applicant argues that Gan does not disclose first and second transceivers used for first and second link accordingly.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Gan discloses two STAs in a multi-link STA having individual link to the multi-link AP (Gan Fig.2). Gan clearly discloses that the multi-link device used in his invention can have multiple transceivers in a transceiver module 403 for sending and receiving data for each link separately. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on meaning of significance of reciting and using separate transceivers for each link. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-13 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 15-18 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 14.
The dependent claim 20 is rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claim 4, the entire claim is unclear as how first STA is being activated and what causes only first STA getting activated once in a power save mode. Thus, it is unclear as to what is the meaning of activate the first transceiver after subsequent to transmission of the UL data. The recited limitation is not further narrowing the claim it depends on.
In claim 5, the claim is unclear as it lacks clear definition of lower co-existence usage and meaning of co-existence usage with regards to peer to peer communication. It is also not clear which devices are considered as peers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1-3,11-12,14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan et al. (US 2023/0354160 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gan”) in view of KIM et al. (US 2023/0209391 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”)-IDS and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2023/0308938 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Sun”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 1,14 and 19, Gan discloses an AP-MLD (Gan Fig.2 Para[0053] A multi-link AP), a station (STA) multi-link device (MLD) (Gan Fig.2 Para[0053] A multi-link STA), comprising: first and second transceiver (Gan Fig.2 Para[0058,0066] Multiple transceivers in a MLD), transmit, an indication that a preferred triggering link (PTL) is associated with a first link of the STA MLD (Gan Fig.4-5 Para[0079,0091] The AP MLD receives the primary link indication from the STA MLD), wherein the first link is associated with the first transceiver of the two or more transceivers (Gan Fig.4,16 Para[0283-285] A first transceiver in the device is associated with the first STA and the primary (i.e. preferred, first) link), wherein a second link of the STA MLD is associated with a second transceiver (Gan Fig.4,16 Para[0283-285] A second transceiver in the device associated with the second STA and second link).
Gan does not explicitly disclose receive, via the PTL. a first trigger frame.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses receive, via the PTL. a first trigger frame (Kim Fig.15,17 Para[0136,0148] The trigger frame is received from the AP-MLD on the preferred link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan to have the feature of “receive, via the PTL. a first trigger frame” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to efficiently utilize multi-links (Kim Para[0095]).
Gan in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose subsequent to receiving the first trigger frame, transmit via the PTL, first uplink (UL) data stored in a buffer associated with the PTL.
However, Sun from the same field of invention discloses subsequent to receiving the first trigger frame, transmit via the PTL, first uplink (UL) data stored in a buffer associated with the PTL (Sun Para[0170-171] The STA MLD sends UL data after receiving a trigger frame from the AP-MLD for the corresponding TID buffer status report, see Para[0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “subsequent to receiving the first trigger frame, transmit via the PTL, first uplink (UL) data stored in a buffer associated with the PTL” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Specifically for claim 1, Gan discloses the STA MLD that includes a transceiver (Gan Fig.16 A Transceiver), and a processor (Gan Fig.16 A processor).
Specifically for claim 14, Gan discloses the AP MLD that includes a transceiver (Gan Fig.17 A Transceiver), and a processor (Gan Fig.17 A processor).
Regarding claim 2, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Sun further discloses determine that the PTL is busy after receiving the first trigger frame; and transmit second UL data via the second link (Sun Fig.5 Para[0100] For a medium busy on one link, the UL messages are exchange on the other link).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “determine that the PTL is busy after receiving the first trigger frame; and transmit second UL data via the second link” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the indication of the PTL is transmitted via an A-Control field or via a management frame (Kim Para[0107-108] The preferred link is included in A control field).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Sun to have the feature of “subsequent to receiving the first trigger frame, transmit via the PTL, an item of first uplink (UL) data stored in a buffer associated with the PTL” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to efficiently utilize multi-links (Kim Para[0095]).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Sun further discloses receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers (Sun Fig.19 Para[0129] The steering and control element (i.e. trigger)); transmit an error message in response to the second trigger frame (Sun Fig.19 Para[0129] A reverse trigger frame (i.e. error)); and transmit third UL data via the PTL in a remaining transmission time of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame (Sun Fig.19 Para[0129,0199-202] The buffered traffic is sent on the link being used).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers; transmit an error message in response to the second trigger frame; and transmit third UL data via the PTL in a remaining transmission time of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Sun further discloses receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers (Sun Fig.19 Para[0129] The steering and control element (i.e. trigger)); and transmit a Buffer Status Report (BSR) and Quality of Service (QoS) Null frames for a duration of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame (Sun Para[0199-202] A BSR is sent in QoS control field).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers; and transmit a Buffer Status Report (BSR) and Quality of Service (QoS) Null frames for a duration of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Sun further discloses transmit a second trigger frame via the PTL (Sun Fig.19 Para[0129] The steering and control element (i.e. trigger)); and receive a Buffer Status Report (BSR) and Quality of Service (QoS) Null frames for a duration of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame (Sun Para[0199-202] A BSR is sent in QoS control field), or receive a link-specific statistic or a trigger-frame specific statistic (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “transmit a second trigger frame via the PTL; and receive a Buffer Status Report (BSR) and Quality of Service (QoS) Null frames for a duration of a reserved resource unit (RU) corresponding to the second trigger frame, or receive a link-specific statistic and/or a trigger-frame specific statistic” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Kim discloses receiving multi-user (MU) enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameters via the PTL (Kim Para[0107-108] The preferred link is included in A control field).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Sun to have the feature of “subsequent to receiving the first trigger frame, transmit via the PTL, an item of first uplink (UL) data stored in a buffer associated with the PTL” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to efficiently utilize multi-links (Kim Para[0095]).
Sun further discloses determining that the PTL is busy (Sun Fig.5 Para[0100] For a medium busy on one link, the UL messages are exchange on the other link); and transmitting via the second link of the STA MLD, in response to the determination, second UL data (Sun Fig.5 Para[0100] For a medium busy on one link, the UL messages are exchange on the other link).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan and Kim to have the feature of “receiving multi-user (MU) enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameters via the PTL; determining that the PTL is busy; and transmitting via a second link of the STA MILD, in response to the determination, second UL data” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to efficiently and effectively manage, steer and control link usage in MLDs (Sun Para[0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of HUANG et al. (US 2022/0322106 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding claim 5, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan further discloses wherein the co-existence usage comprises peer-to-peer communications (Gan Fig.2,6 STA1 to AP1 link creates peer to peer link (i.e. communication)). Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the PTL corresponds to a link with a lower co-existence usage than a remaining link associated with respective ones of the two or more transceivers.
However, Huang from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the PTL corresponds to a link with a lower co-existence usage than a remaining link associated with respective ones of the two or more transceivers (Huang Para[0082] The primary link (i.e. PTL) is determined based on an interference (i.e. higher usage) between links).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “wherein the PTL corresponds to a link with a lower co-existence usage than a remaining link associated with respective ones of the two or more transceivers” as taught by Huang. The motivation would have been for enhanced signaling efficiency and reduced latency (Huang Para[0004]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2023/0043239 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lu”).
Regarding claim 6, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose receive a second trigger frame on the second link, wherein the second trigger frame corresponds to a long resource duration; and transmit second UL data corresponding to the PTL via the second link.
However, Lu from a similar field of invention discloses receive a second trigger frame on the second link, wherein the second trigger frame corresponds to a long resource duration; and transmit second UL data corresponding to the PTL via the second link (Lu Para[0040] A trigger on the secondary link and using the secondary link for UL data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “receive a second trigger frame on the second link, wherein the second trigger frame corresponds to a long resource duration; and transmit second UL data corresponding to the PTL via the second link” as taught by Lu. The motivation would have been to avoid IDC interference issue while efficiently utilizing multi-link resources (Lu Para[0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose use a first traffic ID (TID) to transmit the first UL data via the PTL, and a second TID to transmit the second UL data via the second link.
However, Lu from a similar field of invention discloses use a first traffic ID (TID) to transmit the first UL data via the PTL, and a second TID to transmit the second UL data via the second link (Lu Para[0047] The UL transmission on primary and secondary link having different TIDs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “use a first traffic ID (TID) to transmit the first UL data via the PTL, and a second TID to transmit the second UL data via the second link” as taught by Lu. The motivation would have been to avoid IDC interference issue while efficiently utilizing multi-link resources (Lu Para[0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of Lu and further in view of Seok et al. (US 2023/0018719 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Seok”).
Regarding claim 8, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose receive concurrently with the first trigger frame, a second trigger frame via a second PTL corresponding to a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers, wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and transmit second UL data via the second PTL using a TID corresponding to the second range of TIDs.
However, Lu from a similar field of invention discloses receive concurrently with the first trigger frame, a second trigger frame via a second PTL corresponding to a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers (Lu Para[0040] A trigger on the primary and secondary link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “receive concurrently with the first trigger frame, a second trigger frame via a second PTL corresponding to a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers” as taught by Lu. The motivation would have been to avoid IDC interference issue while efficiently utilizing multi-link resources (Lu Para[0004]).
Gan in view of Kim, Sun and Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and transmit second UL data via the second PTL using a TID of the second range of TIDs.
However, Seok from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and transmit second UL data via the second PTL using a TID of the second range of TIDs (Seok Fig.2,9 Para0025-26,0048] The TIDs to link mapping (i.e. bitmap range) information for each multi-link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim, Sun and Lu to have the feature of “wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and transmit second UL data via the second PTL using a TID of the second range of TIDs” as taught by Seok. The motivation would have been for effective EHT multilink management(Seok Para[0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of PATIL et al. (US 2023/0054755 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Patil”).
Regarding claim 9, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose receive a communication signal comprising an access point (AP) MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link corresponding to the two or more transceivers.
However, Patil from a similar field of invention discloses receive a communication signal comprising an access point (AP) MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link corresponding to the two or more transceivers (Patil Para[0112,0115-116] The AP MLD sends profile for primary and secondary links to the STA MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “receive a communication signal comprising an access point (AP) MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link corresponding to the two or more transceivers” as taught by Patil. The motivation would have been to efficiently discover multiple links on AP MLD (Patil Para[0047]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun, Patil and further in view of Fong et al. (US 2021/0314106 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fong”).
Regarding claim 10, Gan in view of Kim, Sun and Patil discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim, Sun and Patil does not explicitly disclose receive, via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a downlink (DL) retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID).
However, Fong from a similar field of invention discloses receive, via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a downlink (DL) retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID) (Fong Para[0087] A downlink retransmission on first and second access link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim, Sun and Patil to have the feature of “receive, via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a downlink (DL) retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID)” as taught by Fong. The motivation would have been to provide priority to one link over an other link (Fong Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of de la Oliva et al. (US 2021/0211914 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Oliva”).
Regarding claim 13, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers; transmit at least one of a link-specific statistic or trigger-frame specific statistic.
However, Oliva from a similar field of invention discloses receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers (Oliva Para[0087] A channel load request (i.e. trigger)); transmit at least one of a link-specific statistic or trigger-frame specific statistic (Oliva Para[0087] A RTS success or failure count it reported by the STA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “receive a second trigger frame via the PTL while transmitting second UL data on an other link via a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers; transmit at least one of a link-specific statistic or trigger-frame specific statistic” as taught by Oliva. The motivation would have been to provide multi-domain network information (Oliva Abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun and further in view of Lu and further in view of Seok.
Regarding claim 15, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose transmit via a second PTL, a second trigger frame concurrently with the first trigger frame, wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and transmit via a second PTL, a second trigger frame concurrently with the first trigger frame, wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second transceiver of the two or more transceivers, and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and receive via the second PTL, second UL data using a TID corresponding to the second range of TIDs.
However, Lu from a similar field of invention discloses transmit via a second PTL, a second trigger frame concurrently with the first trigger frame (Lu Para[0040] A trigger on the primary and secondary link and using the secondary link for UL data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “transmit via a second PTL, a second trigger frame concurrently with the first trigger frame” as taught by Lu. The motivation would have been to avoid IDC interference issue while efficiently utilizing multi-link resources (Lu Para[0004]).
Gan in view of Kim, Sun and Lu does not explicitly disclose wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and receive via the second PTL, second UL data using a TID corresponding to the second range of TIDs.
However, Seok from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and receive via the second PTL, second UL data using a TID corresponding to the second range of TIDs (Seok Fig.2,9 Para0025-26,0048] The TIDs to link mapping (i.e. bitmap range) information for each multi-link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim, Sun and Lu to have the feature of “wherein the PTL corresponds to a first range of traffic IDs (TIDs), and wherein the second PTL corresponds to a second range of TIDs; and receive via the second PTL, second UL data using a TID corresponding to the second range of TIDs” as taught by Seok. The motivation would have been for effective EHT multilink management(Seok Para[0004]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Kim, Sun, Patil and further in view of Fong.
Regarding claim 16, Gan in view of Kim and Sun discloses the method for the STA MLD, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Gan in view of Kim and Sun does not explicitly disclose transmit a communication signal comprising an AP MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link associated with a respective one of the two or more transceivers, wherein transceivers corresponding to the AP MLD link-pair reside on a common chip; and transmit via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a DL retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID).
However, Patil from a similar field of invention discloses transmit a communication signal comprising an access point (AP) MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link corresponding to the two or more transceivers (Patil Para[0112,0115-116] The AP MLD sends profile for primary and secondary links to the STA MLD), wherein transceivers corresponding to the AP MLD link-pair reside on a common chip (Patil Fig.37 Para[0235] The AP MLD on a system on chip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim and Sun to have the feature of “transmit a communication signal comprising an access point (AP) MLD link-pair corresponding to the PTL and an other link corresponding to the two or more transceivers, wherein transceivers corresponding to the AP MLD link-pair reside on a common chip” as taught by Patil. The motivation would have been to efficiently discover multiple links on AP MLD (Patil Para[0047]).
Gan in view of Kim, Sun and Patil does not explicitly disclose transmit via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a DL retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID).
However, Fong from a similar field of invention discloses transmit via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a DL retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID) (Fong Para[0087] A downlink retransmission on first and second access link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gan, Kim, Sun and Patil to have the feature of “transmit via both links of the AP MLD link-pair, a DL retransmission corresponding to one traffic ID (TID)” as taught by Fong. The motivation would have been to provide priority to one link over an other link (Fong Abstract).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415