DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 4/23/26.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (pre-AIA ), requires that the scope of protection sought be supported by the specification disclosure. The pertinent inquiries include determining (1) whether the subject matter defined in the claims is described in the specification and (2) whether the specification disclosure as a whole is to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling virtual good or virtual goods critical or essential to the practice of the invention, but not included in the claim(s) is not enabled by the disclosure. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The "invention" for the purpose of the first paragraph analysis is defined by the claims. The description requirement is simply that the claimed subject matter must be described in the specification. The function of the description requirement is to ensure that the applicant had possession of the invention on the filing date of the application. The application need not describe the claim limitations exactly, but must be sufficiently clear for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the applicant's invention encompasses the recited limitations. The description requirement is not met if the application does not expressly or inherently disclose the claimed invention.
Specification does not explicitly describe nor is sufficiently clear for one of ordinary skill in art to recognize the following steps as recited in claim(s) *independent claims*:
· wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD, wherein the DTS communication includes a suggested backoff time which extends beyond the end of the TXOP initially acquired by the AP to prevent NSTR self- interference
The Examiner could not locate a support for “no timely response” in a Detail Description. The “no timely response” can be "TWT” or target wait time... [see Paragraph 86 of the present Specification]. It is unclear how this quoted paragraph of the present specification can be equated with the applicant’s interpretation that “The signaling of the P2P Target Wait Time (TWT) to the AP MLD, may be setup as a TWT with the AP.” and thus it is unclear how this quoted paragraph of the present specification can be equated with the claimed limitations “…no timely response” in claim(s) 1, 16 & 20.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-15, 17-19 is/are unclear that the one ordinarily skilled in the art cannot recognize the encompassed claimed limitations.
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 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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6-12,16-18 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2022/0264566 A1 in view of Dong, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2025/0133591 A1, and further in view of Shafin, US 2022/0303907 A1.
As to claim 1, Chu teaches an apparatus for wireless communication in a network, the apparatus comprising:
(a) a wireless communication circuit, configured for communicating between medium access control (MAC) layers of an IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN) as an access point (AP) multiple-link device (MLD) having at least a first access point (AP) and a second AP (Chu, page 2, paragraph 44; page 3, paragraph 49; i.e., [0044] a wireless device, e.g., an access point (AP) (or a non-AP station (STA)) may exchange data frames ( e.g., data Media Access Control (MAC) Protocol Data Units (MPDUs), management MPDUs, or control MPDUs encapsulated in Physical Layer Convergence Protocol (PLCP) Protocol Data Units (PPDUs )). An AP may be configured to operate with associated STAs according to a communication protocol. For example, the communication protocol may be an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) communication protocol, or an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.ll be communication protocol; [0049] WLAN communications protocol);
(b) a processor coupled to said AP MLD for operating on the WLAN;
(c) a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by the processor; and
(d) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol (Chu, page 3, paragraph 53; i.e., [0053] an AP may transmit a multi-user (MU) Request to Send (RTS) (MU-RTS) frame to an STA to initiate an AP assisted single-user (SU) operation where within an allocated time (e.g., part of a TXOP), a destination STA (e.g., a first STA) of the MU-RTS frame performs either uplink (UL) frame exchanges with the AP, or peer-to-peer (P2P) frame exchanges with a P2P peer STA ( e.g., a second STA). Aggregated-MPDUs (A-MPDUs), MPDUs, P2P A-MPDUs, or P2P MPDUs), comprising:
(i) acquiring a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on a first link of the AP MLD and allocating transmissions toward a first link of a first non-AP STA (Chu, page 5, paragraph 65 & 68; i.e., [0065] an AP assisted SU P2P transmission) by transmitting the MU-RTS TXS frame 206 to STAl 204-1, which begins the TXOP 208 and to which STAl 204-1 responds by transmitting the CTS frame 210 that begins the SP allocated to STAl 204-1; [0068] to allocate part of a TXOP (e.g., TXOP 208). In an embodiment, APl 202 may allocate part of the TXOP 208 to STAl (e.g., STAl 204 or STAl 204-1) for a UL frame transmission. In another embodiment, APl 202 may allocate part of the TXOP 208 to STAl for a P2P frame transmission, such that STAl becomes the TXOP owner during the allocated time);
(iii) said communication includes a suggested backoff which extends beyond the end time of the TXOP (Chu, page 9, paragraph 103; i.e., [0103] Duration field
indicates the end of the TXOP. STAl 404-1 then transmits the RTS frame 422 to STA2 404-2 whose Duration field indicates the end of the allocated time for P2P frame exchanges, and in response, whose Duration field also indicates the end of the allocated time for P2P frame exchanges. With such a Duration restriction, the NAY timers of STA2's neighbors (but not STAl's or APl's neighbors) can continue backoffs at the end of the allocated time for P2P frame exchanges);
But Chu failed to teach the claim limitation wherein (i) a first link of a first non-AP STA of a non-AP non-simultaneous transmit receive (NSTR); (ii) transmitting a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) allocation request-from a second link of the AP MLD toward a second link of a second non-access point STA of the non-AP MLD; and (iii) wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD, wherein the end of the TXOP initially acquired by the AP to prevent NSTR self- interference.
However, Dong teaches the limitation (i) a first link of a first non-AP STA of a non-AP non-simultaneous transmit receive (NSTR) (Dong, page 3, paragraph 39-40 & 44; i.e., [0044] On the other hand, non-AP STA MLD may support NSTR (non-simultaneous Tx & Rx) connections); (ii) transmitting a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) allocation request-from a second link of the AP MLD toward a second link of a second non-access point STA of the non-AP MLD (Dong, page 3, paragraph 39-40 & 44; i.e., [0040] Referring to FIG. 2, tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) may be implemented between a first multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 1 and a second multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 2. For example, communication (e.g., transmission of data) can occur directly between non-AP STA MLD 1 and non-AP STA MLD 2 without going through a multi-link access point device (AP MLD). [0044] On the other hand, non-AP STA MLD may support NSTR (non-simultaneous Tx & Rx) connections); (iii) wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD (Dong, page 3, paragraph 50-51; i.e., [0050] the duration for delaying the TDLS communication is determined based on the duration of the data transmission ( data transmission of AP MLD) perceived during listening. That is, the TDLS communication is delayed until the data transmission of the AP MLD ends; [0044] the AP MLD associated with it is communicating (e.g., data transmission), the TDLS communication is delayed, where the delay time is based on the sensed communication time; [NOTE: according to the wikipedia definition, “no timely response” equates to timeout, latency, non-response, delay…]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Chu-Dong-Shafin to substitute bandwidth from Dong for basic service set from Chu-Dong-Shafin the aggregation and coordination of multiple frequency bands can support low-latency transmission (Dong, page 1, paragraph 4).
However, Shafin teaches the limitation wherein said communication includes the AP to prevent NSTR self-interference (Shafin, page 4, paragraph 74; i.e., [0074] data transmission rules for NSTR non-AP MLDs for which STAs affiliated with the non-AP MLD form one or more NSTR link pairs. An NSTR link pair with other STA(s)
affiliated with the same non-AP MLD, the end time of the PPDU s transmitted on those links need to be aligned in order to prevent self-interference at the non-AP MLD side due to NSTR constraints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Chu-Dong-Shafin to substitute restricted TWT from Shafin for negotiated TWT from Chu-Dong-Shafin helps latency-sensitive traffic flow (Shafin, page 1, paragraph 9).
As to claim 2, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said allocation request is using a MU ready to send (RTS) based P2P access, in which frames are sent in a pre-HE format that do not carry a Basic Service Set Identification (BSSID) in its address fields (Chu, page 9, paragraph 101; i.e., [0101] to allow STA2 404-2 to ignore its NAY timer 414, when STAl 404-1 transmits a frame (e.g., RTS frame 422) to STA2 404-2, the RTS frame 422 may include a transmitter address (TA) field that is equal to a BSS Identifier (BSSID) of APl 402 or that is equal to a bandwidth signaling TA of APl. In such an embodiment, STA2).
As to claim 3, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein these frames have transmit address (TA) or receiver address (RA) set as the medium access control (MAC) addresses of two P2P STAs (Chu, page 9, paragraph 101; page 10, paragraph 110-111; i.e., [0101] to allow STA2 404-2 to ignore its NAY timer 414, when STAl 404-1 transmits a frame (e.g., RTS frame 422) to STA2 404-2, the RTS frame 422 may include a transmitter address (TA) field that is equal to a BSS Identifier (BSSID) of APl 402 or that is equal to a bandwidth signaling TA of APl. In such an embodiment, STA2; [0110] Duration field included in the MAC header of the frame(s); [0111] when a solicited STA (e.g., STAl) that is associated with an AP is to exchange frames according to a P2P frame transmission with another STA ( e.g., STA2) that is not associated with the AP. If a first P2P frame exchange between STAl and STA2 fails after transmitting a CTS frame solicited by an MU-RTS TXS frame, then STA may increase its CW as per collision rules and release its time to the AP after a PIPS idle) .
As to claim 4, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein these allocated frames carry a network allocation vector (NAV) with an end time beyond the allocation end time (Chu, page 1, paragraph 16; page 8, paragraph 98; i.e., [0016] STA sets a network allocation vector (NAY) timer in response to receiving the
CTS-to-Self frame; [0098] Consequently, if a Duration field included in an MAC header or a PHY header of frames addressed to STA2 is set per a Duration field included in STAl's responding CTS frame (e.g., to indicate a same ending time) and indicates the end of the TXOP).
As to claim 6, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the AP sends a trigger frame or MU-RTS TXS frame in the next allocation within the same TXOP for MU/SU scheduling, then if the addressed STA previously received the frames it does not respond to the trigger so as not to interfere with a perceived OBSS TXOP because the basic a network allocation vector (NAV) does not indicate that the medium is idle (Chu, page 1, paragraph 16; page 6, paragraph 78; i.e., [0016] STA sets a network allocation vector (NAY) timer in response to receiving the
CTS-to-Self frame; [0078] an assisted SU transmission that includes an allocated time release. As shown, APl 302 transmits the MU-RTS TXS frame 306 to STAl 304-1, which begins the TXOP, the medium becomes idle).
As to claim 7, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) carrying frames in a P2P allocation is required to be in a PPDU format that can identify its BSS, such as in HE or EHT format (Chu, page 2, paragraph 45; i.e., [0045] Basic Service Set (BSS) with the associated STA, but are generally affiliated with lower data throughput protocols. The lower data throughput communication protocols (e.g., High Efficiency (HE) communication protocol, Very High Throughput (VHT) communication protocol, etc.)).
As to claim 8, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) carrying frames in an allocation without BSSID/AP MLD address in its address fields, is required to set NAV, in either the preamble or frames within the PPDU, with an end time which does not extend beyond the end of the current allocation duration (Chu, page 9, paragraph 105; i.e., [0105] In one embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no earlier than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the MU-RTS TXS frame 410. In another embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no later than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in a previous frame transmitted within the TXOP).
As to claim 9, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) carrying frames in an allocation soliciting a responding PPDU which carries a frame without BSSID/AP MLD address in its address fields, is required to set NAV, in the preamble or frames within the PPDU, having an end time not greater than the end of the current allocation duration (Chu, page 9, paragraph 101-106; i.e., [0101] to allow STA2 404-2 to ignore its NAY timer 414, when STAl 404-1 transmits a frame (e.g., RTS frame 422) to STA2 404-2, the RTS frame 422 may include a transmitter address (TA) field that is equal to a BSS Identifier (BSSID) of APl 402. In such an embodiment, STA2; [0110] the Duration field included in the MAC header of the frame(s) (or the PHY header of the PPDU carrying the frame(s )) addressed to STA2 is set no later than an ending time within the TXOP 408 allocated to STAl; [0103] whose Duration field indicates the end of the TXOP (shown by arrow 420 extending up from the CTS frame 416-1). STAl 404-1 then transmits the RTS frame 422 to STA2 404-2 whose Duration field indicates the end of the allocated time for P2P frame).
As to claim 10, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein all frames in an allocation duration are required to set NAV with an end time that does not extend beyond the end of the current allocation duration (Chu, page 9, paragraph 101-106; i.e., [0103] whose Duration field indicates the end of the TXOP (shown by arrow 420 extending up from the CTS frame 416-1). STAl 404-1 then transmits the RTS frame 422 to STA2 404-2 whose Duration field indicates the end of the allocated time for P2P frame; [0105] In such an embodiment, APl 402 initiates an AP assisted P2P transmission by transmitting the CTS-to-Self frame 406 and the MU-RTS TXS frame 410. As an example, the CTS-to-Self frame 406 may include a Resource Address (RA) with an address of STAl 404-1. In one embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no earlier than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the MU-RTS TXS frame 410).
As to claim 11, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6, wherein the MU-RTS TXS frame may have a receiver address (RA) set to a unicast medium access control (MAC) address of a given STAx (Chu, page 9, paragraph 105; i.e., [0105] CTS-to-Self frame 406 may include a Resource Address (RA) with an address of STAl 404-1. In one embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no earlier than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the MU-RTS TXS frame 410. If an AP exchanges frames with other STAs after the AP assisted P2P transmission initiated by the CTS-to-Self frame 406 and MU-RTS TXS frame 410, then the AP transmits another CTS-to-Self frame (not shown) that includes a Duration field that indicates a later ending TXOP time before the frame exchanges with the other STAs) .
As to claim 12, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 11, wherein other STAs in the BSS can determine that the given STAx is an intra-BSS STA, based on the RA and TA (BSSID) values in the frame (Chu, page 9, paragraph 101-106; i.e., [0101] to allow STA2 404-2 to ignore its NAY timer 414, when STAl 404-1 transmits a frame (e.g., RTS frame 422) to STA2 404-2, the RTS frame 422 may include a transmitter address (TA) field that is equal to a BSS Identifier (BSSID) of APl 402 or that is equal to a bandwidth signaling TA of APl. In such an embodiment, STA2; [0105] In such an embodiment, APl 402 initiates an AP assisted P2P transmission by transmitting the CTS-to-Self frame 406 and the MU-RTS TXS frame 410. As an example, the CTS-to-Self frame 406 may include a Resource Address (RA) with an address of STAl 404-1. In one embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no earlier than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the MU-RTS TXS frame 410).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are directed to apparatus claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-4. Therefore, claim(s) 16-18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-4.
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a method claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 5, 13-15 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2022/0264566 A1 in view of Dong, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2025/0133591 A1, and Shafin, US 2022/0303907 A1, and further in view of Ko, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2024/0049304 A1.
As to claim 5, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 2. But Chu-Dong-Shafin failed to teach the claim limitation wherein these allocated frames set basic network allocation vector (NAV) of intra-BSS STAs.
However, Ko teaches the limitation wherein these frames set basic network allocation vector (NAV) of intra-BSS STAs (Ko, page 14, paragraph 181; i.e., [0181] An intra-BSS VAN may be a NAY corresponding to an intra-BSS PPDU. In addition, a basic NAY may be a NAY corresponding to a PPDU other than the intra-BSS PPDU. Alternatively, the basic NAY may be a NAY corresponding to an inter-BSS PPDU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Chu-Dong-Shafin to substitute intra-basic service set from Ko for basic service set from Chu-Dong-Shafin for transmission of the PPDU, and the duration information being configured based on the shared TXOP (Ko, page 1, paragraph 22).
As to claim 13, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 12. But Chu-Dong-Shafin failed to teach the claim limitation wherein later in the allocation duration, frames exchanged between the given STAx and P2P peer STAy, and other intra-BSS STAs set an intra-BSS NAV based on STAx’s MAC address in the address fields in the frames; wherein the intra-BSS NAV does not prevent these intra-BSS STAs from responding to subsequent trigger frames.
However, Ko teaches the limitation wherein later in the allocation duration, frames exchanged between the given STAx and P2P peer STAy, and other intra-BSS STAs set an intra-BSS NAV based on STA’s MAC address in the address fields in the frames; wherein the intra-BSS NAV does not prevent these intra-BSS STAs from responding to subsequent trigger frames (Ko, page 14, paragraph 181; i.e., [0181] An intra-BSS VAN may be a NAY corresponding to an intra-BSS PPDU. In addition, a basic NAY may be a NAY corresponding to a PPDU other than the intra-BSS PPDU. Alternatively, the basic NAY may be a NAY corresponding to an inter-BSS PPDU. TXOP field may be included in a U-SIG field of an ETH PPDU or a PPDU of a standard after the EHT. In addition, the duration information may be included in a MAC header).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Chu-Dong-Shafin to substitute intra-basic service set from Ko for basic service set from Chu-Dong-Shafin for transmission of the PPDU, and the duration information being configured based on the shared TXOP (Ko, page 1, paragraph 22).
As to claim 14, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 6. But Chu-Dong-Shafin failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the frame used for allocating P2P SP, such as MU-RTS, has a NAV end time which does not extend beyond the end of the allocation duration plus a given threshold margin.
However, Ko teaches the limitation wherein the frame used for allocating P2P SP, such as MU-RTS, has a NAV end time which does not extend beyond the end of the allocation duration plus a given threshold margin (Ko, page 15, paragraph 182; i.e., [0182] a received frame corresponds to an inter-BSS. In addition, the
pre-configured condition may include a condition in which a signal strength of the received PPDU or the received frame is less than a threshold. For example, the threshold may be variable. In addition, the threshold may be a threshold for an
OBSS PD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Chu-Dong-Shafin to substitute intra-basic service set from Ko for basic service set from Chu-Dong-Shafin for transmission of the PPDU, and the duration information being configured based on the shared TXOP (Ko, page 1, paragraph 22).
As to claim 15, Chu-Dong-Shafin teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 14, wherein the AP at the end of the allocation duration, transmits another frame to extend the TXOP (Chu, page 9, paragraph 105; i.e., [0105] CTS-to-Self frame 406 may include a Resource Address (RA) with an address of STAl 404-1. In one embodiment, if the CTS-to-Self frame 406 is not the first frame transmitted within the TXOP 408, then a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the CTS-to-Self frame may be no earlier than a TXOP ending time indicated by a Duration field included in the MU-RTS TXS frame 410).
Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to apparatus claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim(s) 19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 has/have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments include the failure of previously applied art to expressly disclose “wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD” (see Applicant’s response, 4/23/26, page 10-11). It is evident from the detailed mappings found in the above rejection(s) that Dong disclosed this functionality (see Dong, page 3, paragraph 50-51). Further, it is clear from the numerous teachings (previously and currently cited) that the provision for “wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD” was widely implemented in the networking art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments drawn toward distinction of the claimed invention and the prior art teachings on this point are not considered persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1
Appellant argues on page 9-11 of the Argument (claim(s) 1, 16 & 20),
“Chu in view of Dong, that Dong does not teach the claimed limitation "(ii) transmitting a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) allocation request-from a second link of the AP MLD toward a second link of a second non-access point STA of the non-AP MLD”.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1:
As describe in Dong (Dong, page 3, paragraph 39-40 & 44; i.e., [0040] Referring to FIG. 2, tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) may be implemented between a first multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 1 and a second multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 2. For example, communication (e.g., transmission of data) can occur directly between non-AP STA MLD 1 and non-AP STA MLD 2 without going through a multi-link access point device (AP MLD). [0044] On the other hand, non-AP STA MLD may support NSTR (non-simultaneous Tx & Rx) connections), the invention disclosed the method of tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) may be implemented between a first multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 1 and a second multi-link station device non-AP STA MLD 2. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of "(ii) transmitting a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) allocation request-from a second link of the AP MLD toward a second link of a second non-access point STA of the non-AP MLD " has been made, and the Examiner believes the claim limitation in view of Dong are within the scope of such interpretation.
Argument 2
Appellant argues on page 9-11 of the Argument (claim(s) 1, 16 & 20),
“Chu in view of Dong, that Dong does not teach the claimed limitation “(iii) wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD”.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2:
As describe in Dong (Dong, page 3, paragraph 50-51; i.e., [0050] the duration for delaying the TDLS communication is determined based on the duration of the data transmission ( data transmission of AP MLD) perceived during listening. That is, the TDLS communication is delayed until the data transmission of the AP MLD ends; [0044] the AP MLD associated with it is communicating (e.g., data transmission), the TDLS communication is delayed, where the delay time is based on the sensed communication time; [NOTE: according to the wikipedia definition, “no timely response” equates to timeout, latency, non-response, delay…]), the invention disclosed the method of (iii) wherein responsive to the AP determining that there is no timely response to the allocation request from the second link of the second non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD, the AP sends a delay to send (DTS) communication on its second link toward the second link of the second non-AP STA of the NSTR MLD. Clearly, nothing in the Detail Description define what is “no timely response”, therefore, according to the Wikipedia, “no timely response” equates to timeout, latency, non-response, delay…. Therefore, Dong meets the claim limitation.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Fang, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 12363778 B2 discloses TXOP, AP MLD & NSTR.
Quan, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20240314860 A1 discloses multiple APs, AP MLD and non AP MLD, NSTR.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights