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 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,11,14-15 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-6,9-16 and 19-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,11 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of newly added limitation of describing the first multi-link device of Claims 1,11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/1/2026 on pages 8-9
of applicant's remark regarding 112(b) rejection of Claims 1,11,20, the applicant argues that the applicant’s specifications clearly describe the shared spatial streams, shared station field, participating in shared spatial streams and shared stream shared by the first station and other stations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: The claimed invention is not clearly showing any structure being used to inform other stations involved in a communication with a station sending a frame with indication of sharing streams with them. As examiner stated in the previous office actions, using the word shared does not clarify the claimed invention. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on a real meaning of “sharing or shared terms” and how they are being used to achieve the claimed invention. The independent claims merely recite terms share, shared or sharing without providing any use of the claimed invention. “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int' ! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 12-16 and 19 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 11.
2. Applicant's arguments filed on 01/11/2026 on page 12
of applicant's remark regarding Claims 1,11,20, the applicant argues that Chu does not teach shared streams, generating a frame and sending it to another station. The applicant further argues that Kim does not teach a station being shared station.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Chu discloses the AP or a client device which is involved in generating and sending the information for spatial streams which the examiner relates to a claimed station (Chu Para[106-115]). Chu further teaches generation of MAC data unit which is equivalent to the claimed frame and Chu further teaches MAC data unit sent to the another device (Chu Para[106-110,113-115]). The combination of Chu, Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Kim clearly teaches the claimed invention. The applicant has used a term shared which is not clearly providing the intentions behind it. Chu discloses maximum spatial stream supported by the device which is sufficient enough to relate it to the streams claimed by the applicant. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on a real meaning of “sharing or shared terms” and how they are being used to achieve the claimed invention. The independent claims merely recite terms share, shared or sharing without providing any use of the claimed invention to make it patentably unique from the teachings of Chu, Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Kim. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 12-16 and 19 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 11.
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 1-20 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 claims 1,11 and 20, the phrase “shared spatial streams”, “shared station field”, “participating” and “shared stream shared by the first station and other stations are unclear as to what it refers. The claim recites “. . a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams supported . .” in line 3 by reciting “the first frame usable to” do that which shows the intended use and the claim further recites the frame comprises the shared station field to indicate multiple station which are participating in sharing. The claim language is vague and confusing to properly conduct search for a prior art reference as there is no relationship defined between “supported” and “sharing”, “a link” and “a stream”. It is also not clear how stations are made aware of sharing streams among them.
Claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 1.
Claims 12-16 and 19 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 11.
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 1-6,9-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU et al. (US 2018/0302847 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chu”)-IDS in view of Abouelseoud et al. (US 2022/0141871 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Abouelseoud”) and further in view of KNECKT et al. (US 2021/0076437 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kneckt”) and further in view of KIM et al. (US 2021/0099253 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”) and further in view of Zhou et al. (WO 2020/146401 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 20, Chu discloses a data transmission method and an apparatus (Chu Fig.1 An apparatus), wherein the method comprises: generating, by a first station in a first multi-link device, a first frame (Chu Fig.8 Para[0106-110,0113-115] A MAC data unit (i.e. first frame) is generated by the AP or client device (i.e. MLD or station)), wherein the first frame indicates a maximum quantity of spatial streams supported by the first multi-link device (Chu Fig.8 Para[0106-110,0113-115] The MAC data unit includes maximum number of spatial streams supported by the device (i.e. station)); and sending, by the first station, the first frame to a second multi-link device to indicate a maximum quantity of spatial streams supported by the first multi-link device (Chu Fig.8 Para[0106-110,0113-115] A MAC data unit is transmitted to the second device).
Chu does not explicitly disclose the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams and the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device.
However, Abouelseoud from the same field of invention discloses the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams (Abouelseoud Fig.33 Para[0096-99,0211-212,0235-236] The sharing of up to 8 spatial streams (i.e. maximum) among the STAs) and the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device (Abouelseoud Fig.33 Para[0096-99,0211-212,0235-236] The multiple STAs sharing spatial streams. The same concept can be implemented in a device with multiple stations).
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 Chu to have the feature of “the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams and the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device” as taught by Abouelseoud. The motivation would have been to reduce packet latency (Abouelseoud Para[0010]).
Chu in view of Abouelseoud does not explicitly disclose the MLD supporting multiple link support and wherein the first multi-link device comprises multiple stations among which the first station is one of the multiple stations.
However, Kneckt from the same field of invention discloses the MLD having multiple stations supporting multiple links (Kneckt Fig.11,13 Para[0054] The EHT AP or non-AP (i.e. MLD) supporting multiple links (i.e. streams) and MLD operating parameters for each link are provided to the AP which includes EHT support) and wherein the first multi-link device comprises multiple stations among which the first station is one of the multiple stations (Kneckt Fig.3 Para[0036] The Non-AP EHT STA (i.e. MLD) contains multiple stations).
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 Chu and Abouelseoud to have the feature of “the MLD device supporting multiple link support and wherein the first multi-link device comprises multiple stations among which the first station is one of the multiple stations” as taught by Kneckt. The motivation would have been to utilize multilink MAC address to support multiple link operation for high throughput (Kneckt Para[0006]).
Chu in view of Abouelseoud and Kneckt does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations of the first multi-link device participating in the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams, and the plurality of stations comprise the first station and the one or more other stations in the first multi-link device.
However, Kim from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the first frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations of the first multi-link device participating in the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams, and the plurality of stations comprise the first station and the one or more other stations in the first multi-link device (Kim Para[0137-139,0145-146] The HE-PPDU (i.e. frame) has HE-SIG-A and B fields which include number of streams and multiple station IDs).
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 Chu, Abouelseoud and Kneckt to have the feature of “wherein the first frame comprises a shared station field, and the shared station field indicates a plurality of stations of the first multi-link device participating in the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams, and the plurality of stations comprise the first station and the one or more other stations in the first multi-link device” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to provide accurate and efficient transmission (Kim Para[0016]).
Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Kim does not explicitly disclose the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device based on sharing of a high MAC layer.
However, Zhou from a similar field of invention discloses the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device based on sharing of a high MAC layer (Zhou Fig.4 Para[0065,0096-98,0100-101] The supported multiple links between AP and STA are supported with a single session at the upper MAC layer (i.e. higher). Zhou teaches a concept of combining multiple links (i.e. streams) at the upper MAC layer).
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 Chu, Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Kim to have the feature of “the maximum quantity of shared spatial streams are shared by the first station and one or more other stations in the first multi-link device based on sharing of a high MAC layer” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to provide improved data flow with packed based link aggregation (Zhou Para[0004]).
Specifically for claims 11 and 20, Chu discloses a processor (Chu Fig.1 Para[0022-24] A processor) and memory (Chu Fig.1 Para[0022-24] A memory).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the first frame comprises an indication of a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams supported by the first multi-link device for each modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (Chu Para[0050,0114] The information element as part of MAC management frame includes supported MCS and number of spatial streams).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the first frame comprises a first field, and the first field indicates a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams for receiving supported by the first multi-link device for each MCS (Chu Para[0050-51,0114] The RX MCS map).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the first field is-carried in a Supported Extremely High Throughput (EHT) MCS and Number of Spatial Streams (NSS) Set field of the first frame (Chu Para[0050-51,0114] The MCS and NSS fields in the MAC management frame).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the first frame comprises a second field, and the second field indicates a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams for transmitting supported by the first multi-link device for each MCS (Chu Para[0050-51,0114] The TX MCS map (i.e. second field)).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the second field is carried in a Supported EHT MCS and NSS Set field of the first frame (Chu Para[0050-51,0114] The MCS and NSS fields in the MAC management frame).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the first frame comprises an indication of a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams supported by each station in the first multi-link device (Kim Para[0138-139,0146] HE-SIG-A and B includes number of streams for each STA).
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 Chu, Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Zhou to have the feature of “wherein the first frame comprises an indication of a maximum quantity of shared spatial streams supported by each station in the first multi-link device” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to provide accurate and efficient transmission (Kim Para[0016]).
Regarding claim 10, Chu in view of Abouelseoud, Kneckt, Kim and Zhou discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the first frame comprises a third field, and the third field includes a field of a quantity of spatial streams for receiving, a field of a quantity of spatial streams for transmitting (Chu Para[0050-51,0114] The TX and RX MCS map). Kim further discloses wherein the first frame comprises a third field, and the third field includes a link identifier field (Kim Para[0138-139,0146] HE-SIG-A and B includes beamforming information (i.e. link identifier)).
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 Chu, Abouelseoud, Kneckt and Zhou to have the feature of “wherein the first frame comprises a third field, and the third field includes a field of a quantity of spatial streams for receiving, a field of a quantity of spatial streams for transmitting and a link identifier field” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to provide accurate and efficient transmission (Kim Para[0016]).
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