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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot due to the introduction of new references and a new basis for rejection necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Newly added claim 31 is addressed in detail below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 13, 21, 27, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0139002 A1; “Lee”) in view of Cai et al. (US 2008/0232301 A1; “Cai”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a first wireless communication device, comprising:
a processing system that comprises one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors [Lee ¶ 0020, Fig. 2: receiver 200 is depicted in FIG. 2 as including a processor 204, a data store 206 (i.e. memory)], the processing system configured to cause the first wireless communication device to:
monitor communication with a second wireless communication device via a link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0025-0026, Fig. 3: at block 302, data packets are received over a communication channel from a transmitter, wherein at block 304, channel state information (CSI) of the communication channel is obtained from the received packets; see also ¶ 0031: communication over a single channel comprising sub-channels for communicating a plurality of data spatial streams],
the second wireless communication device using a first set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0050, Fig. 6: at 602, transmitting module 510 may transmit the data packets via the input/output interface 502 using a MCS (i.e. first set of communication parameters) that was determined and communicated to the transmitter 500];
transmit, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination relating to the communication using the first set of communication parameters, an indication for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to a second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via the link, the second set of communication parameters being different from the first set of communication parameters [Lee ¶ 0035: a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (i.e. second set of parameters) to be implemented by the transmitter is determined based upon the Eber values determined at block 310 and the coherence time period determined at block 312 (i.e. the second set of parameters is determined based on measurements of signals transmitted according to the first parameters); ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter]; and
communicate, via the link, one or more frames with the second wireless communication device subsequent to transmitting the indication [Lee ¶ 0036: the MCS determined at block 312, and the coherence time period related to the determined MCS value is transmitted to the transmitter, wherein the transmitter utilizes the determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period].
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai teaches transmitting, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059, Fig 7: UE receives a sequence of packets as part of a real-time transmission at step 7-1 (i.e. according to a first MCS), makes channel quality measurement in respect of a channel over which the packets were received, and feeds back to MCS adaptation decision at step 7-4; ¶ 0056: for example, if UE determines the reception quality is very poor (i.e. fails to satisfy a quality criteria), it requests to be moved to a more conservative MCS].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of determining to request a change of MCS by a receiver device based on a received packet not meeting a quality requirement as taught by Cai. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce uplink overhead through UE assisted MCS adaptation [Cai ¶ 0057].
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a frame that comprises the indication, wherein the indication is a recommendation that the second wireless communication device use the second set of communication parameters to communicate with the first wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter, which is utilized to determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period; see also ¶ 0037: indication in control header of packet (i.e. a frame)].
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication is a request for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to the second set of communication parameters.
However, Cai teaches wherein the indication is a request for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to the second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059: receiver makes an MCS adaptation decision which is fed back to transmitted; ¶ 0056: feedback requests adjustment to higher/lower MCS].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 3, wherein, to communicate the one or more frames, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: communicate, in response to the request, the one or more frames in accordance with the second set of communication parameters [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter, which is utilized to determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period, wherein the transmitter may select one of the MCS values for data transmission (i.e. one or more transmissions are sent with indicated MCS)].
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein:
the second set of communication parameters comprises at least one of a bandwidth for the second wireless communication device to use, a number of spatial streams for the second wireless communication device to use, a modulation and coding scheme for the second wireless communication device to use, a first mode of operation to enable for communicating with the first wireless communication device, a second mode of operation to disable for communicating with the first wireless communication device, a traffic identifier-to-link mapping for the second wireless communication device to use, a type of physical layer protocol data unit for the second wireless communication device to use, or any combination thereof, the first mode of operation comprises an enhanced multi-link single radio mode, an enhanced multi-link multi radio mode, a multi-link multi-radio mode, a multi-link single radio mode, a multi-primary channel mode, spatial multiplexing power save mode, or a packet repetition mode that indicates a repetition of the one or more frames on a link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, a duplication of the one or more frames across a set links between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, or any combination thereof, and the second mode of operation comprises the enhanced multi-link single radio mode, the enhanced multi-link multi radio mode, the multi-link multi-radio mode, the multi-link single radio mode, the multi-primary channel mode, the spatial multiplexing power save mode, or the packet repetition mode [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein: the first wireless communication device is a first access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), a first AP station (STA), a first non-AP MLD, a first non-AP STA, or a combination thereof, and the second wireless communication device is a second AP MLD, a second non- AP MLD, a second AP STA, a second non-AP STA, or a combination thereof [Lee ¶ 0014: the transmitter 110 (i.e. second wireless communication device) may comprise a first access point and the receiver 120 (i.e. first wireless communication device) may comprise a second access point; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches a second wireless communication device, comprising:
a processing system that comprises one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors [Lee ¶ 0045, Fig. 5: transmitter 500 is depicted as including an input/output interface 502, a processor 504, a data store 506, and a MCS manager 508. The MCS manager 508 comprises, for instance, software and/or hardware that is to perform the functions of the MCS manager 140], the processing system configured to cause the second wireless communication device to:
communicate with a first wireless communication device using a first set of communication parameters [Lee ¶ 0025-0026, Fig. 3: at block 302, data packets are received over a communication channel from a transmitter; ¶ 0050, Fig. 6: at 602, transmitting module 510 may transmit the data packets via the input/output interface 502 using a MCS (i.e. first set of communication parameters) that was determined and communicated to the transmitter 500];
receive, from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination relating to the communicating using the first set of communication parameters, an indication for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to a second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via a link [Lee ¶ 0035: a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (i.e. second set of parameters) to be implemented by the transmitter is determined based upon the Eber values determined at block 310 and the coherence time period determined at block 312 (i.e. the second set of parameters is determined based on measurements of signals transmitted according to the first parameters); ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter]; and
communicate, via the link, one or more frames with the first wireless communication device subsequent to receiving the indication [Lee ¶ 0036: the MCS determined at block 312, and the coherence time period related to the determined MCS value is transmitted to the transmitter, wherein the transmitter utilizes the determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period].
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose receive, from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai teaches receive, from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059, Fig 7: UE receives a sequence of packets as part of a real-time transmission at step 7-1 (i.e. according to a first MCS), makes channel quality measurement in respect of a channel over which the packets were received, and feeds back to MCS adaptation decision at step 7-4; ¶ 0056: for example, if UE determines the reception quality is very poor (i.e. fails to satisfy a quality criteria), it requests to be moved to a more conservative MCS].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of determining to request a change of MCS by a receiver device based on a received packet not meeting a quality requirement as taught by Cai. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce uplink overhead through UE assisted MCS adaptation [Cai ¶ 0057].
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, wherein, to receive the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: receive a frame that comprises the indication, wherein the indication is a recommendation that the second wireless communication device use the second set of communication parameters to communicate with the first wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter, which is utilized to determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period; see also ¶ 0037: indication in control header of packet (i.e. a frame)].
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, however, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication is a request for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to the second set of communication parameters.
However, Cai teaches wherein the indication is a request for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to the second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059: receiver makes an MCS adaptation decision which is fed back to transmitted; ¶ 0056: feedback requests adjustment to higher/lower MCS].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 27, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, wherein: the second set of communication parameters comprises at least one of a bandwidth for the second wireless communication device to use, a number of spatial streams for the second wireless communication device to use, a modulation and coding scheme for the second wireless communication device to use, a first mode of operation to enable for communicating with the first wireless communication device, a second mode of operation to disable for communicating with the first wireless communication device, a traffic identifier-to- link mapping for the second wireless communication device to use, a type of physical layer protocol data unit for the second wireless communication device to use, or any combination thereof, the first mode of operation comprises an enhanced multi-link single radio mode, an enhanced multi-link multi radio mode, a multi-link multi-radio mode, a multi-link single radio mode, a multi-primary channel mode, spatial multiplexing power save mode, or a packet repetition mode that indicates a repetition of the one or more frames on a link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, a duplication of the one or more frames across a set links between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, or any combination thereof, and the second mode of operation comprises the enhanced multi-link single radio mode, the enhanced multi-link multi radio mode, the multi-link multi-radio mode, the multi-link single radio mode, the multi-primary channel mode, the spatial multiplexing power save mode, or the packet repetition mode [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches a method for wireless communications at a first wireless communication device, comprising:
monitoring communication with a second wireless communication device via a link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0025-0026, Fig. 3: at block 302, data packets are received over a communication channel from a transmitter, wherein at block 304, channel state information (CSI) of the communication channel is obtained from the received packets; see also ¶ 0031: communication over a single channel comprising sub-channels for communicating a plurality of data spatial streams],
the second wireless communication device using a first set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device [Lee ¶ 0050, Fig. 6: at 602, transmitting module 510 may transmit the data packets via the input/output interface 502 using a MCS (i.e. first set of communication parameters) that was determined and communicated to the transmitter 500];
transmitting, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination relating to the communication using the first set of communication parameters, an indication for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to a second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via the link, the second set of communication parameters being different from the first set of communication parameters [Lee ¶ 0035: a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (i.e. second set of parameters) to be implemented by the transmitter is determined based upon the Eber values determined at block 310 and the coherence time period determined at block 312 (i.e. the second set of parameters is determined based on measurements of signals transmitted according to the first parameters); ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter]; and
communicating, via the link, one or more frames with the first wireless communication device subsequent to receiving the indication [Lee ¶ 0036: the MCS determined at block 312, and the coherence time period related to the determined MCS value is transmitted to the transmitter, wherein the transmitter utilizes the determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period].
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai teaches transmitting, to the second wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059, Fig 7: UE receives a sequence of packets as part of a real-time transmission at step 7-1 (i.e. according to a first MCS), makes channel quality measurement in respect of a channel over which the packets were received, and feeds back to MCS adaptation decision at step 7-4; ¶ 0056: for example, if UE determines the reception quality is very poor (i.e. fails to satisfy a quality criteria), it requests to be moved to a more conservative MCS].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of determining to request a change of MCS by a receiver device based on a received packet not meeting a quality requirement as taught by Cai. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce uplink overhead through UE assisted MCS adaptation [Cai ¶ 0057].
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches a method for wireless communications at a second wireless communication device, comprising:
communicating with a first wireless communication device using a first set of communication parameters [Lee ¶ 0025-0026, Fig. 3: at block 302, data packets are received over a communication channel from a transmitter; ¶ 0050, Fig. 6: at 602, transmitting module 510 may transmit the data packets via the input/output interface 502 using a MCS (i.e. first set of communication parameters) that was determined and communicated to the transmitter 500];
from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination relating to the communicating using the first set of communication parameters, an indication for the second wireless communication device to adjust the first set of communication parameters to a second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via a link [Lee ¶ 0035: a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (i.e. second set of parameters) to be implemented by the transmitter is determined based upon the Eber values determined at block 310 and the coherence time period determined at block 312 (i.e. the second set of parameters is determined based on measurements of signals transmitted according to the first parameters); ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter]; and
communicating, via the link, one or more frames with the first wireless communication device subsequent to receiving the indication [Lee ¶ 0036: the MCS determined at block 312, and the coherence time period related to the determined MCS value is transmitted to the transmitter, wherein the transmitter utilizes the determined MCS value as a recommendation to select a MCS to transmit data packets to the receiver within a period corresponding to the coherence time period].
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Cai teaches receiving, from the first wireless communication device responsive to a determination that the communication using the first set of communication parameters fails to satisfy one or more criteria, a second set of communication parameters [Cai ¶ 0059, Fig 7: UE receives a sequence of packets as part of a real-time transmission at step 7-1 (i.e. according to a first MCS), makes channel quality measurement in respect of a channel over which the packets were received, and feeds back to MCS adaptation decision at step 7-4; ¶ 0056: for example, if UE determines the reception quality is very poor (i.e. fails to satisfy a quality criteria), it requests to be moved to a more conservative MCS].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of determining to request a change of MCS by a receiver device based on a received packet not meeting a quality requirement as taught by Cai. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce uplink overhead through UE assisted MCS adaptation [Cai ¶ 0057].
Regarding claim 31, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the second set of communication parameters comprise at least one of a number of spatial streams for the second wireless communication device to use, a modulation and coding scheme for the second wireless communication device to use, a traffic identifier-to-link mapping for the second wireless communication device to use, a type of physical layer protocol data unit for the second wireless communication device to use, or any combination thereof [Lee ¶ 0036: at block 316, the MCS determined at block 312, or a value associated with the determined MCS, is transmitted to the transmitter; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, 17, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann et al. (US 2024/0049084 A1; “McCann”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 3, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the request, a second indication of the second set of communication parameters, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with receiving the second indication.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the request, a second indication of the second set of communication parameters, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with receiving the second indication [McCann ¶ 0068: non-AP MLD that receives a link configuration query management frame (i.e. request) can send a link configuration request management frame (i.e. second indication) to change a communication link configuration based on the recommendation; ¶ 0069, Fig. 7: request frame includes new link info 710].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a request for the second wireless communication device to activate the link for communicating with the first wireless communication device using the second set of communication parameters, the request comprising the second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a request for the second wireless communication device to activate the link for communicating with the first wireless communication device using the second set of communication parameters, the request comprising the second set of communication parameters [McCann ¶ 0068: link configuration query management frame is transmitted by an AP MLD to suggest that a non-AP MLD change its communication link configuration to a recommended new communication link mapping (i.e. second set of parameters); ¶¶ 0061-0062, Figs. 3 & 4: links between non-AP MLD and AP MLD are changed from a first configuration (shown in Fig. 3) to a second configuration (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the configuration of Fig. 4 activates the link 234; ¶ 0070, Fig. 8: new link info field 910 comprises a basic variant of the multi-link element conveying the requested mapping for each communication link].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication comprises a second indication of the link of a set of links between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device for which the second wireless communication device is to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches wherein the indication comprises a second indication of the link of a set of links between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device for which the second wireless communication device is to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device [McCann ¶ 0068: link configuration query management frame is transmitted by an AP MLD to suggest that a non-AP MLD change its communication link configuration to a recommended new communication link mapping; ¶¶ 0061-0062, Figs. 3 & 4: links between non-AP MLD and AP MLD are changed from a first configuration (shown in Fig. 3) to a second configuration (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the configuration of Fig. 4 activates the link 234; ¶ 0070, Fig. 8: new link info field 910 comprises a basic variant of the multi-link element conveying the requested mapping for each communication link; see also ¶ 0072, Fig. 9: query frame 900 includes multiple fields (here, the new link info is analogous to a second indication included in the query management frame 900 analogous to first indication)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit the indication via aggregated control (A-Control) signaling, a block acknowledgement frame, or an action frame.
However, McCann teaches wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit the indication via aggregated control (A-Control) signaling, a block acknowledgement frame, or an action frame [McCann ¶ 0068: link configuration query management frame (i.e. action frame) is transmitted by an AP MLD to suggest that a non-AP MLD change its communication link configuration to a recommended new communication link mapping; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative, therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein, to receive the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: receive a request for the second wireless communication device to activate the one or more links link for communicating with the first wireless communication device using the second set of communication parameters, the request comprising the second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches receive a request for the second wireless communication device to activate the one or more links link for communicating with the first wireless communication device using the second set of communication parameters, the request comprising the second set of communication parameters [McCann ¶ 0068: link configuration query management frame is transmitted by an AP MLD to suggest that a non-AP MLD change its communication link configuration to a recommended new communication link mapping (i.e. second set of parameters); ¶¶ 0061-0062, Figs. 3 & 4: links between non-AP MLD and AP MLD are changed from a first configuration (shown in Fig. 3) to a second configuration (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the configuration of Fig. 4 activates the link 234; ¶ 0070, Fig. 8: new link info field 910 comprises a basic variant of the multi-link element conveying the requested mapping for each communication link].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Claim(s) 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0247698 A1; “Liu”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a confirmation of a usage, by the second wireless communication device, of the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a confirmation of a usage, by the second wireless communication device, of the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device [McCann ¶ 0068: non-AP MLD that receives a link configuration query management frame (i.e. request) can send a link configuration request management frame (i.e. second indication) to change a communication link configuration based on the recommendation; ¶ 0069, Fig. 7: request frame includes new link info 710 (here, non-AP MLD requests one of the recommended configurations and includes said configuration in new link info 710)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
However, Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann does not explicitly disclose the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with the confirmation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with the confirmation [Liu ¶ 0162, Fig. 12: the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may implement the final mapping, e.g., default mapping, second mapping, AP preferred mapping, or any other previously applied mapping, wherein the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may exchange data and/or management/control information in the uplink and or downlink directions according to the final mapping].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: transmit, to the first wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a confirmation of a usage, by the second wireless communication device, of the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches transmit, to the first wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a confirmation of a usage, by the second wireless communication device, of the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device [McCann ¶ 0068: non-AP MLD that receives a link configuration query management frame (i.e. request) can send a link configuration request management frame (i.e. second indication) to change a communication link configuration based on the recommendation; ¶ 0069, Fig. 7: request frame includes new link info 710 (here, non-AP MLD requests one of the recommended configurations and includes said configuration in new link info 710)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
However, Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann does not explicitly disclose the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with the confirmation; or transmit, to the first wireless communication device in response to the indication, a third indication of a rejection, by the second wireless communication device, to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the first set of communication parameters
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the second set of communication parameters in accordance with the confirmation [Liu ¶ 0162, Fig. 12: the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may implement the final mapping, e.g., default mapping, second mapping, AP preferred mapping, or any other previously applied mapping, wherein the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may exchange data and/or management/control information in the uplink and or downlink directions according to the final mapping]; or
transmit, to the first wireless communication device in response to the indication, a third indication of a rejection, by the second wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0120: AP MLD transmits AP preferred mapping; ¶ 0122: non-AP MLD (i.e. second device) may be configured to respond with a T2L negotiation response that indicates: 1) acceptance of the AP proposed mapping; or 2) rejection with a counter proposal, wherein the counter proposal may include 1) no mapping change (i.e. using first set of parameters)],
to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the first set of communication parameters [Liu ¶ 0162, Fig. 12: the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may implement the final mapping, e.g., default mapping, second mapping, AP preferred mapping, or any other previously applied mapping, wherein the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may exchange data and/or management/control information in the uplink and or downlink directions according to the final mapping].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Claim(s) 8-10, 18-20, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a rejection, by the second wireless communication device, to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the first set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a rejection, by the second wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0120: AP MLD transmits AP preferred mapping; ¶ 0122: non-AP MLD (i.e. second device) may be configured to respond with a T2L negotiation response that indicates: 1) acceptance of the AP proposed mapping; or 2) rejection with a counter proposal, wherein the counter proposal may include 1) no mapping change (i.e. using first set of parameters)],
to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the first set of communication parameters [Liu ¶ 0162, Fig. 12: the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may implement the final mapping, e.g., default mapping, second mapping, AP preferred mapping, or any other previously applied mapping, wherein the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may exchange data and/or management/control information in the uplink and or downlink directions according to the final mapping].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: determine an adherence to the indication by the second wireless communication device in accordance with communicating the one or more frames in accordance with the second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: determine an adherence to the indication by the second wireless communication device in accordance with communicating the one or more frames in accordance with the second set of communication parameters [Liu ¶ 0160: non-AP MLD may receive any final mapping instruction and may transmit a response (1228), wherein the response may be an acknowledgement of the final mapping instruction, the final mapping instruction implemented when the response is transmitted (i.e. the AP MLD receives indication that non-AP MLD intends to use (adheres to) the final mapping)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a third set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device; and transmit, in response to the second indication, a third indication of a confirmation of the third set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device or of a fourth set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device, the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the third set of communication parameters, the fourth set of communication parameters, or a fifth set of communication parameters in accordance with the third indication.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device in response to the indication, a second indication of a third set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0136, Fig. 12: in response to request for mapping in step 1208, non-AP MLD may transmit a T2L negotiation request to the AP MLD, that may indicate one or more suitable mappings, e.g., that map the active TIDs to sufficient links or sets of links according to the priority of the TIDs (i.e. third set of parameters); ¶ 0137:T2L negotiation request from the non-AP MLD may contain a counter proposal mapping (or mappings) indicating an alternative AT2LS mapping (different from the first mapping proposed by the AP MLD)]; and
transmit, in response to the second indication, a third indication of a confirmation of the third set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device or of a fourth set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0145: if the second mapping or counter proposal is determined to be unsuitable, the AP MLD may determine a mapping for a further counter proposal; ¶ 0147: AP MLD may send a second request for mapping to the non-AP MLD (1220), according to some embodiments. The second request for mapping may include an indication of the further counter proposal mapping],
the one or more frames communicated in accordance with the third set of communication parameters, the fourth set of communication parameters, or a fifth set of communication parameters in accordance with the third indication [Liu ¶ 0162, Fig. 12: the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may implement the final mapping, e.g., default mapping, second mapping, AP preferred mapping, or any other previously applied mapping, wherein the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD may exchange data and/or management/control information in the uplink and or downlink directions according to the final mapping].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device, a request to trigger the second wireless communication device to transmit one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device, the request comprising a third set of communication parameters associated with transmitting the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device; and transmit, to the second wireless communication device and in accordance with the request, a trigger frame that triggers the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device, a request to trigger the second wireless communication device to transmit one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device, the request comprising a third set of communication parameters associated with transmitting the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0136: non-AP MLD may indicate one or more suitable mappings, e.g., that map the active TIDs to sufficient links or sets of links according to the priority of the TIDs; ¶ 0122: non-AP MLD (i.e. second device) may be configured to respond with a T2L negotiation response that indicates: 1) acceptance of the AP proposed mapping; or 2) rejection with a counter proposal, wherein the counter proposal may include 3) alternative mapping, e.g., different from the current mapping, default mapping, or AP proposed mapping (i.e. third parameter set)]; and
transmit, to the second wireless communication device and in accordance with the request, a trigger frame that triggers the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0147, Fig. 12: AP MLD may send a second request for mapping to the non-AP MLD (1220), according to some embodiments, wherein the second request for mapping may include an indication of the further counter proposal mapping; ¶ 0152: the AP MLD and non-AP MLD may apply the further counter proposal upon expiration of the counter proposal time (here, a response to non-AP, i.e., second device, recommending further link-mapping to AP, i.e. first device, a frame is sent that triggers application of the mapping for future communications, i.e., second frames)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Cai in view of Liu teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 18, however, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device, the one or more second frames in accordance with the trigger frame triggering the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames in accordance with the third set of communication parameters.
However, Liu teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device, the one or more second frames in accordance with the trigger frame triggering the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames in accordance with the third set of communication parameters [Liu ¶ 0136: non-AP MLD may indicate one or more suitable mappings 3) alternative mapping, e.g., different from the current mapping, default mapping, or AP proposed mapping (i.e. third parameter set); ¶ 0152: the AP MLD and non-AP MLD may apply the further counter proposal upon expiration of the counter proposal time (here, a response to non-AP, i.e., second device, recommending further link-mapping to AP, i.e. first device, a frame is sent that triggers application of the mapping for future communications, i.e., second frames)].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second set of communication parameters is associated with communicating with the first wireless communication device via a first link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, and wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit the indication via a second link different than the first link.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the second set of communication parameters is associated with communicating with the first wireless communication device via a first link between the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, and wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit the indication via a second link different than the first link [Liu ¶ 0118: if the AP has not indicated the AP preferred mapping, then the AP MLD and non-AP MLD may initially use the default mapping (here, the default mapping is different than an preferred mapping, i.e., first link associated with second communication parameters)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Regarding claim 28, Lee in view of Cai teaches the second wireless communication device of claim 22, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the second wireless communication device to: transmit, to the first wireless communication device, a request to trigger the second wireless communication device to transmit one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device, the request comprising a third set of communication parameters associated with transmitting the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device; and receive, from the first wireless communication device and in accordance with the request, a trigger frame that triggers the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches transmit, to the first wireless communication device, a request to trigger the second wireless communication device to transmit one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device, the request comprising a third set of communication parameters associated with transmitting the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0136: non-AP MLD may indicate one or more suitable mappings, e.g., that map the active TIDs to sufficient links or sets of links according to the priority of the TIDs; ¶ 0122: non-AP MLD (i.e. second device) may be configured to respond with a T2L negotiation response that indicates: 1) acceptance of the AP proposed mapping; or 2) rejection with a counter proposal, wherein the counter proposal may include 3) alternative mapping, e.g., different from the current mapping, default mapping, or AP proposed mapping (i.e. third parameter set)]; and
receive, from the first wireless communication device and in accordance with the request, a trigger frame that triggers the second wireless communication device to transmit the one or more second frames to the first wireless communication device [Liu ¶ 0147, Fig. 12: AP MLD may send a second request for mapping to the non-AP MLD (1220), according to some embodiments, wherein the second request for mapping may include an indication of the further counter proposal mapping; ¶ 0152: the AP MLD and non-AP MLD may apply the further counter proposal upon expiration of the counter proposal time (here, a response to non-AP, i.e., second device, recommending further link-mapping to AP, i.e. first device, a frame is sent that triggers application of the mapping for future communications, i.e., second frames)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating, with a multi-link device, according to an negotiated multi-link configuration as taught by Liu. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve wireless communication capacity and reduce interference through efficient management of multi-link devices [Liu ¶ 0079].
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of Hwang et al. (US 2024/0234266 A1; “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 11, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second indication comprises a set of bits, each bit of the set of bits associated with a respective link of the set of links and indicating whether the second wireless communication device is to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via the respective link.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hwang teaches wherein the second indication comprises a set of bits, each bit of the set of bits associated with a respective link of the set of links and indicating whether the second wireless communication device is to use the second set of communication parameters for communicating with the first wireless communication device via the respective link [Hwang ¶¶ 0100-0101: beacon frame (i.e. first indication) transmitted by the AP MLD is activated may include the TID-to-link mapping element (i.e. second indication), wherein a link mapping bitmap for each TID may be included in the TID-to-link mapping element; ¶ 0102: TID may be mapped to up to 16 links in a 16-bit bitmap, e.g., TID 0 is set to 1110 0000 0000 0000, this may mean that data with the TID 0 can be transmitted in the first link, the second link, and the third link (i.e. each bit of bitmap is mapped to one of the 16 links)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating a TID-link mapping during a MLD link negotiation procedure as taught by Hwang. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce interruptions in multi-link communications thereby improving quality [Hwang ¶ 0027].
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Cai teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a frame comprising a set of bits, each bit of the set of bits mapping to a respective set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device or to a respective set of adjustments to the first set of communication parameters, the indication being for the second wireless communication device to use the second set of communication parameters in accordance with a value of a first bit of the set of bits that maps to the second set of communication parameters or to a first set of adjustments to the first set of communication parameters used to generate the second set of communication parameters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hwang teaches wherein, to transmit the indication, the processing system is configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit a frame comprising a set of bits, each bit of the set of bits mapping to a respective set of communication parameters for the second wireless communication device to use for communicating with the first wireless communication device or to a respective set of adjustments to the first set of communication parameters, the indication being for the second wireless communication device to use the second set of communication parameters in accordance with a value of a first bit of the set of bits that maps to the second set of communication parameters or to a first set of adjustments to the first set of communication parameters used to generate the second set of communication parameters [Hwang ¶¶ 0100-0101: beacon frame (i.e. first indication) transmitted by the AP MLD is activated and may include the TID-to-link mapping element (i.e. indication), wherein a link mapping bitmap for each TID may be included in the TID-to-link mapping element; ¶ 0102: TID may be mapped to up to 16 links in a 16-bit bitmap, e.g., TID 0 is set to 1110 0000 0000 0000, this may mean that data with the TID 0 can be transmitted in the first link, the second link, and the third link (i.e. each bit of bitmap is mapped to one of the 16 links)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of communicating a TID-link mapping during a MLD link negotiation procedure as taught by Hwang. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce interruptions in multi-link communications thereby improving quality [Hwang ¶ 0027].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann in view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Cai in view of Hwang teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 14, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: communicate one or more second frames with the second wireless communication device to negotiate a respective mapping of each bit to the respective set of communication parameters or to the respective set of adjustments.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, McCann teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: communicate one or more second frames with the second wireless communication device to negotiate a respective mapping of each bit to the respective set of communication parameters or to the respective set of adjustments [McCann ¶ 0068: link configuration query management frame (i.e. second indication) is transmitted by an AP MLD to suggest that a non-AP MLD change its communication link configuration to a recommended new communication link mapping; ¶¶ 0061-0062, Figs. 3 & 4: links between non-AP MLD and AP MLD are changed from a first configuration (shown in Fig. 3) to a second configuration (shown in Fig. 4), wherein the configuration of Fig. 4 activates the link 234; ¶ 0070, Fig. 8: new link info field 910 comprises a basic variant of the multi-link element conveying the requested mapping for each communication link; see also ¶ 0072, Fig. 9: query frame 900 includes multiple fields (here, the new link info is analogous to a second indication included in the query management frame 900 analogous to first indication)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of negotiating link parameters between wireless communication devices as taught by McCann. The motivation to combine these references would be to improve communication quality through monitoring and link adaptation [McCann ¶ 0050].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cai in view of McCann in view of Hwang in view of Dong (US 2023/0262801 A1; “Dong”).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Cai in view of Hwang in view of McCann teaches the first wireless communication device of claim 15, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: establish a second link with the second wireless communication device in accordance with a first capability of the first wireless communication device to negotiate the respective mapping and a second capability of the second wireless communication device to negotiate the respective mapping.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dong teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: establish a second link with the second wireless communication device in accordance with a first capability of the first wireless communication device to negotiate the respective mapping and a second capability of the second wireless communication device to negotiate the respective mapping [Dong ¶ 0099, Fig. 3: prior to QTP request/response (i.e. link negotiation) AP and STA perform multi-link capability exchange and establish communication based on the capability information].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of indicating a requested change to MCS based on signal quality measurements at a receiving device as taught by Lee, with the method of performing an initial communication between multi-link devices based on device capabilities as taught by Dong. The motivation to combine these references would be improve the system throughput and spectrum efficiency [Dong ¶ 0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
