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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 4 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 contains blurry text in the box between TWT SP1 and TWT SP2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230199641), hereinafter Naik, in view of Xin et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230262770), hereinafter Xin ‘770, and Xin et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0199847), hereinafter Xin ‘847.
Regarding Claim 1, Naik discloses a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising: stations (STAs) comprising transceivers configured to form links with APs, respectively, the APs affiliated with an AP MLD (Figures 15 and 16 and paragraphs 0167-0171, which disclose the STA of the non-AP MLD and access points, respectively), wherein: first and second links of the links form a non-simultaneous transmit/receive (NSTR) link pair subject to NSTR constraints (Figures 11A and 11B and paragraphs 0136-0140, wherein the non-AP MLD operates in NSTR mode), a first target wake time (TWT) schedule that has a first TWT service period (SP) is established on the first link and a second TWT schedule that has a second TWT SP is established on the second link, and the first and second TWT SPs have an overlapping portion (Figures 9B and 9C and paragraphs 0116-0126; Figures 11A and 11B and paragraphs 0135-0140, wherein links have at least partially overlapping schedules); and a processor operably coupled to the transceivers (Figure 15, communication manager 1520 operably coupled to a reception component 1510 and transmission component 1530) the processor configured to determine scheduling for traffic on the first and second links during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs such that the NSTR constraints are not violated (Figures 11A and 11B and paragraphs 0136-0140, wherein the non-AP MLD operates in NSTR mode), wherein at least one of the transceivers is further configured to transmit or receive the traffic to or from the AP MLD (Figure 15, communication manager 1520 operably coupled to a reception component 1510 and transmission component 1530 for transmission to / reception from the AP). However, Naik does not disclose an associated first set of traffic identifiers (TIDs) is established on the first link and a second TWT schedule that has a second TWT SP and an associated second set of TIDs or determine, based on characteristics of the first and second sets of TIDs, scheduling for traffic on the first and second links. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses an associated first set of traffic identifiers (TIDs) is established on the first link and a second TWT schedule that has a second TWT SP and an associated second set of TIDs or determine, based on characteristics of the first and second sets of TIDs, scheduling for traffic on the first and second links (paragraphs 0075-0079, where in TWT SPs are associated with traffic identifiers and latency sensitive traffic is scheduled with higher priority during the TWT SP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein the TWT SP from a highest-priority TID is prioritized to resolve a conflict with the NSTR constraints during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs. In an analogous art, Xin ‘847 discloses this. Specifically, Xin ‘847 discloses a non-AP STA and an AP negotiating which TIDs of traffic are considered latency sensitive during the R-TWT SPs (paragraphs 0174 and 0177), where the AP receives updates from a R-TWT station on traffic identification (TID) information where the traffic is prioritized to transmit during the R-TWT SPs (paragraph 0246). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Naik/Xin ‘770 with Xin ‘847. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve scheduling decisions and reduce latency, jitter, and packet loss (refer to paragraph 0009 of Xin ‘847).
Claim 11 comprises substantially similar limitations to Claim 11, claimed as an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), comprising APs comprising transceivers and a processor operably coupled to the transceivers. Naik further discloses APs comprising transceivers and a processor operably coupled to the transceivers (Figure 16, communication manager 1620 operably coupled to a reception component 1610 and transmission component 1630 for transmission to / reception from the non-AP). The remaining limitations of Claim 11 are rejected using the same rationale as presented above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, as described above. However, Naik does not disclose the characteristics of the first and second sets of TIDs include a respective priority of each TID. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses this (paragraphs 0075-0079, where in TWT SPs are associated with traffic identifiers and latency sensitive traffic is scheduled with higher priority during the TWT SP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claims 2 and 12, as described above. However, Naik does not disclose the first set of TIDs includes a highest priority TID among TIDs in the first and second sets of TIDs, and the processor is further configured to determine, based on the first set of TIDs including the highest priority TID, the scheduling for the traffic such that the traffic on the first link is prioritized to resolve a conflict with the NSTR constraints during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses this (paragraphs 0075-0079, where in TWT SPs are associated with traffic identifiers and latency sensitive traffic is scheduled with higher priority during the TWT SP; Figure 7 and paragraph 0088, where the AP prioritizes frame exchange of latency sensitive traffic (e.g., R-TWT DL/UL TIDs) and P2P traffic of all the member STAs of the R-TWT SPs). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 9, Naik further discloses the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, and a first of the transceivers and a second of the transceivers are further configured to receive, from the AP MLD on the first link and the second link, respectively, first and second DL PPDUs, respectively, at the same time during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs (refer to Figure 11A and paragraphs 0135-0138, wherein a trigger is sent on both Link1 and Link2, and UL PPDUs are transmitted by the stations at the same time in the overlapping portion of the TWT service periods). However, Naik does not disclose the first and second sets of TIDs include the same TIDs. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses this (paragraphs 0055 and 0057, where traffic for the TWT SP share the same TID). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 19, Naik discloses the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the processor is further configured to generate first and second DL PPDUs, and a first of the transceivers and a second of the transceivers are further configured to transmit, to the non-AP MLD on the first link and the second link, respectively, the first and second DL PPDUs, respectively, at the same time during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs (refer to Figure 11A and paragraphs 0135-0138, wherein a trigger is sent on both Link1 and Link2, and UL PPDUs are transmitted by the stations at the same time in the overlapping portion of the TWT service periods). However, Naik does not disclose the first and second sets of TIDs include the same TIDs. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses this (paragraphs 0055 and 0057, where traffic for the TWT SP share the same TID). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Naik further discloses the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, a first of the transceivers and a second of the transceivers are further configured to receive, from the AP MLD on the first link and the second link, respectively, a first trigger frame and a second trigger frame, respectively, during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the first and second trigger frames, first and second UL PPDUs, and the first and second transceivers are further configured to transmit, to the AP MLD on the first link and the second link, respectively, the first and second UL PPDUs, respectively, at the same time during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs (refer to Figure 11A and paragraphs 0135-0138, wherein a trigger is sent on both Link1 and Link2, and UL PPDUs are transmitted by the stations at the same time in the overlapping portion of the TWT service periods). However, Naik does not disclose the first and second sets of TIDs include the same TIDs. In an analogous art, Xin ‘770 discloses this (paragraphs 0055 and 0057, where traffic for the TWT SP share the same TID). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006).
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik in view of Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847, as applied to Claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Chu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220110053), hereinafter Chu.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 2, as described above. Further, Xin’ 770 discloses transmitting DL PPDUs during a TXOP that overlaps with the an R-TWT SP (Figures 4 and 5, paragraph 0075, when the AP behaves as the TXOP holder, it can transmit the traffic from the R-TWT Downlink (DL) TIDs of the R-TWT SP or trigger the traffic from the R-TWT (Uplink) UL TIDs of the R-TWT SP and the P2P traffic (or P2P traffic that is regarded as latency sensitive traffic, and that is scheduled with higher priority to transmit during the R-TWT SP) as those traffic are from the primary AC during the shared TXOP.) It would have been obvious to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770 with Naik for the same rationale as described above for Claim 2. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, at least one of the transceivers is further configured to receive, from the AP MLD, a downlink (DL) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) for traffic corresponding to an access class (AC) during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, and the AC corresponds to the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 and Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 12, as described above. Further, Xin’ 770 discloses transmitting DL PPDUs during a TXOP that overlaps with the an R-TWT SP (Figures 4 and 5, paragraph 0075, when the AP behaves as the TXOP holder, it can transmit the traffic from the R-TWT Downlink (DL) TIDs of the R-TWT SP or trigger the traffic from the R-TWT (Uplink) UL TIDs of the R-TWT SP and the P2P traffic (or P2P traffic that is regarded as latency sensitive traffic, and that is scheduled with higher priority to transmit during the R-TWT SP) as those traffic are from the primary AC during the shared TXOP.) It would have been obvious to combine the further modify Naik with Xin ‘770 for the same rationale as described above for Claim 2. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the processor is further configured to generate a downlink (DL) physical protocol data unit (PPDU) for traffic corresponding to an access class (AC), the AC corresponds to the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, and at least one of the transceivers is further configured to transmit, to the non-AP MLD. the DL PPDU during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Naik and Xin ‘770 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 2, as described above. Naik further discloses transmitting a UL PPDU (see Figure 11A). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the at least one transceiver is further configured to receive, from the AP MLD during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, a trigger frame including an indication of an AC, the AC corresponds to the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, the processor is further configured to generate, based on the AC, an uplink (UL) PPDU for the traffic corresponding to the highest priority TID, and the at least one transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the AP MLD, the UL PPDU. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 12, as described above. Naik further discloses transmitting a UL PPDU (see Figure 11A). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the processor is further configured to generate a trigger frame including an indication of an AC, the AC corresponds to the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, the at least one transceiver is further configured to: transmit, to the non-AP MLD during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, the trigger frame; and receive, from the non-AP MLD, an uplink (UL) PPDU for the traffic corresponding to the highest priority TID, and the UL PPDU is generated based on the AC indicated in the trigger frame. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 2, as described above. Naik further discloses transmitting a UL PPDU (see Figure 11A). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the at least one transceiver is further configured to receive, from the AP MLD during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, a trigger frame including an indication of a first TID, the first TID is the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, the processor is further configured to generate a UL PPDU for the traffic corresponding to the first TID, and the at least one transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the AP MLD, the UL PPDU. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 12, as described above. Naik further discloses transmitting a UL PPDU (see Figure 11A). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the processor is further configured to generate a trigger frame including an indication of a first TID, the first TID is the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, and the at least one transceiver is further configured to: transmit, to the non-AP MLD during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, the trigger frame; and receive, from the non-AP MLD, a UL PPDU for the traffic corresponding to the first TID. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 2, as described above. Further, Xin’ 770 discloses transmitting DL PPDUs during a TXOP that overlaps with the an R-TWT SP (Figures 4 and 5, paragraph 0075, when the AP behaves as the TXOP holder, it can transmit the traffic from the R-TWT Downlink (DL) TIDs of the R-TWT SP or trigger the traffic from the R-TWT (Uplink) UL TIDs of the R-TWT SP and the P2P traffic (or P2P traffic that is regarded as latency sensitive traffic, and that is scheduled with higher priority to transmit during the R-TWT SP) as those traffic are from the primary AC during the shared TXOP.) It would have been obvious to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770 for the same rationale as described above for Claim 2. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, at least one of the transceivers is further configured to receive, from the AP MLD, a DL PPDU for traffic corresponding to a first TID during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs, and the first TID is the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claim 12, as described above. Further, Xin’ 770 discloses transmitting DL PPDUs during a TXOP that overlaps with the an R-TWT SP (Figures 4 and 5, paragraph 0075, when the AP behaves as the TXOP holder, it can transmit the traffic from the R-TWT Downlink (DL) TIDs of the R-TWT SP or trigger the traffic from the R-TWT (Uplink) UL TIDs of the R-TWT SP and the P2P traffic (or P2P traffic that is regarded as latency sensitive traffic, and that is scheduled with higher priority to transmit during the R-TWT SP) as those traffic are from the primary AC during the shared TXOP.) It would have been obvious to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770 for the same rationale as described above for Claim 2. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both trigger-enabled TWT schedules, the processor is further configured to generate a DL PPDU for traffic corresponding to a first TID, the first TID is the highest priority TID for which traffic is currently buffered at the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD, and at least one of the transceivers is further configured to transmit, to the non-AP MLD, the DL PPDU during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs. In an analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraphs 0053-0058, wherein an AP may indicate a preferred AC in a basic trigger frame or polls a STA’s buffer status, and solicited STAs refer to TIDs when transmitting high-priority PPDUs first followed by low-priority TIDs; paragraph 0133, a preferred access class (AC) or traffic identifier (TID) in a trigger that the negotiated traffic NSEP belongs to, in response to the first wireless circuit being configured to not allocate a resource more than a reported buffer status for the TID of the negotiated traffic for solicited second devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Naik, Xin ‘770 and Xin ‘847 renders obvious the limitations of Claims 2 and 12, as described above. Further, Xin ‘770 discloses the first set of TIDs includes the highest priority TID, and the processor is further configured to determine, based on the first set of TIDs including the highest priority TID, the scheduling for the traffic during the overlapping portion of the TWT SPs such that second DL traffic is scheduled for transmission on the second link only when first DL traffic is scheduled on the first link (paragraphs 0075-0079, where in TWT SPs are associated with traffic identifiers and latency sensitive traffic is scheduled with higher priority during the TWT SP; Figure 7 and paragraph 0088, where the AP prioritizes frame exchange of latency sensitive traffic (e.g., R-TWT DL/UL TIDs) and P2P traffic of all the member STAs of the R-TWT SPs). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Naik with Xin ‘770. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow member stations of a TWT SP to contend for a channel in trigger-based service periods (Xin ‘770 at paragraph 0006). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first and second TWT schedules are both non-trigger-enabled TWT schedules. In analogous art, Chu discloses this (paragraph 0057, a solicited STA may transmit the frames of the negotiated traffic (TID) of the restricted TWT SP (i.e., non-trigger enabled TWT schedule) in the TB PPDU in the restricted TWT SP. When the negotiated traffic for the restricted TWT SP shares the same TID with other traffic, a solicited STA may transmit the frames of the negotiated traffic of the restricted TWT SP in the TB PPDU. If there is unused time in UL TB PPDU, a solicited STA may transmit frames with TID that is not negotiated for the restricted TWT SP. When the negotiated traffic for the restricted TWT SP shares the same TID with other traffic, and when there is unused time in UL TB PPDU, a solicited STA may transmit frames from traffic/TID that is not negotiated for the restricted TWT SP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Naik / Xin ‘770 / Xin ‘847 with Chu. One would be motivated to do so in order to support low-latency QoS traffic in national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) environments (paragraph 0052 of Chu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Adame et al (“Time-Sensitive Networking in IEEE 802.11be: On the Way to Low-Latency WiFi 7”) discloses traffic prioritization in 802.11be networks (refer to section 4.4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472