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 .
This office action is in response to remarks filed 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-8, 11-14 and 16-23 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 11-14, 16-18, 20-21, and 23 have been amended. No claims are added or cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
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, 12, and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite the amended limitation “determining, by the first peer-to-peer device, one or more types of multi-link operation (MLO) supported by a set of peer-to-peer devices, from the first group, that desire to use a transmission opportunity;”. The element ‘that desire to use a transmission opportunity’ is indefinite as to the metes and bounds.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaya et al. (WO-2024009838, hereinafter “Kanaya”), in view of Patil et al. (US 20210014911 A1, hereinafter “Patel”), in view of Parks (US 20180109609 A1, hereinafter “Parks”).
RE Claim 12, 1, 17, Kanaya discloses a system, method or computer readable medium:
determining, by a first peer-to-peer device, a set of access point(s) (APs) that are visible to each peer-to-peer device of a plurality of peer-to-peer devices in a first group;
(Examiner interpretation: First, the elements of a determination of devices ‘that are visible’ is interpreted by the examiner as a wireless communication link of minimum quality that supports an exchange of messages between two devices. Examiner interprets a determination of ‘visibility’ as successful exchange of messages at least according to standards for wireless P2P operation. Examiner interprets ‘a set’ of a plurality as one or more APs are determined to be ‘visible’. STA1, a first P2P device receives a beacon transmitted from the AP and transmits Association Request to the AP. ¶0062; STA4, a second P2P device, receives a beacon from the AP and transmits an Association Request to the AP. ¶0065; The AP may notify the STA of the range of P2P ID values that the STA can use when the communication device, e.g. a STA, sets up a P2P link. ¶0069; If a BSS (e.g., IBSS, PBSS, or P2P Group) other than the BSS managed by the AP is configured for the P2P link, at least one of the STAs that make up the P2P link belongs to both the AP's infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link. A STA that belongs to both the AP’s infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link, a group, may participate in both BSSs. ¶0071; Therefore, STAs and APs are ‘visible’ as they successfully communicate by scanning for beacons and perform an association.)
receiving, by the first peer-to-peer device, the group ID assigned by a wireless access point (AP) (A link that performs P2P communication is described as a P2P link. ¶0029; AP notifies STA of an identifier for identifying a P2P link is hereinafter referred to as a P2P ID, a group ID. ¶0057; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP controls the P2P link1 and link2 of the P2P ID, a set of links in a first group of peer to peer devices. ¶0097, Fig. 12);
requesting, by the first peer-to-peer device, that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity for a first peer-to-peer communication using the group ID and based on the determined one or more types of MLO (AP may use a basic Trigger Frame which indicates a Buffer Status Report Poll to the P2P ID, group ID. The STA1 notifies the AP of the data accumulation status, a request, in each buffer of the STA identified by the P2P ID specified by the AP. This enables the AP to perform scheduling that takes into account buffer status of each STA included in the P2P link corresponding to the P2P ID, a group ID. ¶¶0102-0103, Fig. 4; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP controls the P2P link1 and link2 of the P2P ID, a set of links in a first group of peer to peer devices. ¶0097, Fig. 12; AP and STA may have multi-link device, MLD, configurations performing P2P communications. ¶¶0117-0119; The AP may notify the STA of the range of P2P ID values that the STA can use when the communication device, e.g. a STA, sets up a P2P link. ¶0069; If a BSS (e.g., IBSS, PBSS, or P2P Group) other than the BSS managed by the AP is configured for the P2P link, at least one of the STAs that make up the P2P link belongs to both the AP's infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link. A STA that belongs to both the AP’s infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link, a group, may participate in both BSSs. ¶0071; Therefore, if the devices have MLD configurations they support at least one type of MLO.); and
in response to receiving a trigger frame comprising the group ID, performing the first peer-to-peer communication using the transmission opportunity (STA1 receives MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame from AP. Transmission control information contained in the MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame including transmission frequency band information and RU allocation for P2P Link1. ¶0087; Fig. 14; Transmission and reception periods of STA1 and STA3 may be limited to the TXOP specified in the MU-RTS TXS Trigger frame. ¶0088; Fig. 12) .
Kanaya does not explicitly disclose:
requesting, by the first peer-to-peer device and from the determined set of APs, a group identifier (ID) for a set of links to be used for peer-to-peer communication among the first group, wherein the set of links are determined based on;
However, Patil discloses:
requesting, by the first peer-to-peer device and from the determined set of APs, a group identifier (ID) for a set of links to be used for peer-to-peer communication among the first group (Multilink communication, ML, between a first wireless device D1, AP MLD, and a second wireless device D2, STA MLD, a set of P2P links and a group of two P2P devices. AP MLD includes a first AP with a first link and one or more second APs with one or more second links. ¶0133, Fig. 9B; AP MLD transmits first packet to STA MLD including multilink information for the links. First packet includes Link Attribute Element, LA, and Multiple Link Attribute Element, MLA. Attribute elements carry discovery information including operating parameters and capability information with per-link profile sub elements. ¶¶0134-0135, Fig. 9B; STA MLD transmits multilink Association request including additional discovery information for the links to the AP MLD. ¶0139, Fig. 9B; AP MLD receives request and performs ML association operation with the STA MLD based on discovery information. ¶0140, Fig. 9B; AP MLD and STA MLD map MSDUs for one or more TIDs, a group ID, with one or more of the first and second links. ¶0142, Fig. 9B; AP MLD dynamically maps one or more TIDs to any subset of the links. An example is TID=2 maps to a third link, TID=5 maps to a first and second link, and TID=6 maps to all of the links. ¶¶0147, 0173-0174), wherein the set of links are determined based on;
determining, by the first peer-to-peer device, one or more types of multi-link operation (MLO) supported by a set of peer-to-peer devices, from the first group, that desire to use a transmission opportunity (Various implementations relate generally to multi-link (ML) communications, and specifically to establishing an ML communication session between wireless communication devices. Aspects of the present disclosure provide a single ML association context for a plurality of communication links shared between multiple devices that form a multi-link device (MLD). By providing a single ML association context that can be shared between the MAC-SAP endpoints of the MLD devices, aspects of the present disclosure allow the MLD devices to dynamically switch their communications between different communication links or groups of communication links without disassociating or re-associating with one another. In some implementations, associating with one another on one communication link allows the MLD devices to use the same association configuration, encryption keys, and other ML communication parameters when communicating on one or more of the other communication links associated with the MLDs. ¶0070; STA MLD transmits multilink Association request including additional discovery information for the links to the AP MLD. ¶0139, Fig. 9B; AP MLD receives request and performs ML association operation with the STA MLD based on discovery information. ¶0140, Fig. 9B; Multi Link Attribute elements for discovery, transmitted by AP MLD, includes indication of whether the transmitting devices supports simultaneous transmit-and-receive, STR, or non-STR, types of MLO. ¶0222, Fig. 18: 1820);
Kanaya and Patil do not explicitly disclose:
comprising: one or more computer processors; and
a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation, the operation comprising:
However, Parks discloses:
comprising: one or more computer processors (¶0058, Fig. 1, ¶0121); and
a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation (¶0121)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, assigning identification to a group of peer to peer devices based on RF capabilities, with the teachings of Parks, implementation in hardware with processors and memory, with the teachings of Patil, a method to represent a group of links with a single ID during MLO.
The motivation in doing so would be to improve MLO and more efficient communications by representing an association of a set of links based on set of attributes with a single identification. A single identification of a set of links provides efficiency for discovery, dynamically switching links, and reduced overhead of link management such as block acknowledgement sessions. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016; Patil: Abstract, ¶¶0004, 0006-0008, 0107, 0110-0111).
RE Claim 13, 2, 18, Kanaya discloses a system, method or computer readable medium:
the operation further comprising:
receiving, by the first peer-to-peer device, RF capabilities from one or more peer- to-peer devices in the first group of peer-to-peer devices (STA1 associated with an AP. STA1 associated with STA2, P2P link2, and STA3, P2P link1, to perform P2P communication. ¶0051, Fig. 12; STA1, acting as a secondary AP for the P2P group, perform secondary AP Registration Request and secondary AP Registration response for the link between STA1 and STA2 as example. ¶0068, Fig. 12; Three or more STAs may be registered as one P2P link and assigned to P2P ID. ¶0098, Fig. 12; P2P Register Request frame, same function as secondary AP Request frame by STA, includes capability of the P2P link indicating the capability related to the communication in a P2P link. Capabilities of a P2P link include channel information, transmit power values, power control and trigger function, RF capabilities. ¶0122;); and
wherein the set of links corresponds to the one or more preferred channels (A link including three or more STAs may be registered as one P2P link. ¶0098; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP specifies the primary, preferred, channel of the P2P link. AP may specify primary, preferred, channels of two P2P link. ¶0100).
Kanaya does not explicitly disclose:
aggregating, by the first peer-to-peer device, the RF capabilities to identify one or more preferred channels for the first group, wherein the set of links corresponds to the one or more preferred channels;
However, Parks discloses:
aggregating, by the first peer-to-peer device, the RF capabilities to identify one or more preferred channels for the first group (First and second peer devices each transmit a list indicating which transmission channels, an aggregation of available channels, they support as a possible group owner. ¶¶0016, 0104-0105, Fig. 3a, 5; First peer device transmits information regarding the capabilities of the first peer device and receiving from the second peer device the capabilities of the second peer device. ¶0021, 0104-0105, Fig. 3a, 5; Each peer may preferentially connect on a DFS channel with low usage or may be configured to prefer any other channels or to select a channel used by a another connected device. ¶0093; Each peer may be configured to order its list of channels in order of preference. ¶0111, Fig. 3a, 3b; Benefit of one list that is functionally two channel lists in a single list. System is able to determine the channels supported a group owner and client and distinguish them from the channels only supported as a client. ¶¶0068-0071, Fig. 3a, 3b);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, receiving indications of RF capabilities from a group of peer to peer devices, with the teachings of Parks, aggregating the combined list of channels of the peer to peer devices to determine a set of preferred channels based on capabilities.
The motivation in doing so would be to support a determination of the optimal channels to use in P2P links by the two P2P devices of different RF capabilities to optimize improve resource and schedule efficiency. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016, ¶0021, 0104-0105, Fig. 5).
RE Claim 14, 4, 19, Kanaya discloses a system, method or computer readable medium:
the operation further comprising receiving one or more indications of traffic demands from the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group, wherein allocation of the transmission opportunity is requested based at least in part on the traffic demands from the one or more peer-to-peer devices (AP may use a basic Trigger Frame which indicates a Buffer Status Report Poll to the P2P ID, group ID. The STA1 notifies the AP of the data accumulation status, a request, in each buffer of the STA identified by the P2P ID specified by the AP. This enables the AP to perform scheduling that takes into account buffer status of each STA included in the P2P link corresponding to the P2P ID, a group ID. ¶¶0102-0103, Fig. 4).
RE Claim 5, Kanaya discloses a system, method or computer readable medium:
wherein requesting that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity comprises requesting the transmission opportunity for each link of the set of links (AP may use a basic Trigger Frame which indicates a Buffer Status Report Poll to the P2P ID, group ID. The STA1 notifies the AP of the data accumulation status, a request, in each buffer of the STA identified by the P2P ID specified by the AP. This enables the AP to perform scheduling that takes into account buffer status of each STA included in the P2P link corresponding to the P2P ID, a group ID. ¶¶0102-0103, Fig. 4).
RE Claim 16, 11, 20 Kanaya discloses a system, method or computer readable medium:
transmitting an indication of RF capabilities of the first peer-to-peer device to the wireless AP, wherein: (P2P communication with AP and STAs, devices. ¶0014; STA sends a P2P Register Request to the AP. ¶0120; P2P Register Request frame includes capability of the P2P link indicating the capability related to the communication in a P2P link. Capabilities of a P2P link include channel information, transmit power values, power control and trigger function, RF capabilities. ¶0122)
in response to receiving the indication of the RF capabilities of the first peer-to- peer device, the wireless AP When AP receives a P2P Register Request, AP P2P Register Response assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125;:
assigns the first peer-to-peer device to the first group of peer-to-peer devices based at least in part on the RF capabilities of the first peer-to-peer device (A link that performs P2P communication is described as a P2P link. ¶0029; AP notifies STA of an identifier for identifying a P2P link is hereinafter referred to as a P2P ID, a group ID. ¶0057; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP controls the P2P link1 and link2 of the P2P ID, a set of links in a first group of peer to peer devices. ¶0097, Fig. 12),
aggregates the RF capabilities of the first peer-to-peer device and RF capabilities of one or more other peer-to-peer devices in the first group to identify one or more preferred channels for the first group (A link including three or more STAs may be registered as one P2P link. ¶0098; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP specifies the primary, preferred, channel of the P2P link. AP may specify primary, preferred, channels of two P2P link. ¶0100),
establishes the set of links in the one or more preferred channels (A link that performs P2P communication is described as a P2P link. ¶0029; AP notifies STA of an identifier for identifying a P2P link is hereinafter referred to as a P2P ID, a group ID. ¶0057; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP controls the P2P link1 and link2 of the P2P ID, a set of links in a first group of peer to peer devices. ¶0097, Fig. 12),
transmits the group ID to each peer-to-peer device in the first group (A link that performs P2P communication is described as a P2P link. ¶0029; AP notifies STA of an identifier for identifying a P2P link is hereinafter referred to as a P2P ID, a group ID. ¶0057; When AP receives a P2P Register Request from a STA, AP P2P Register Response sent to a STA assigns the P2P ID assigned to the registered link. ¶0125; A P2P ID may be assigned to a single P2P link that combines P2P link1 and P2P link2, a group ID. ¶0098; AP controls the P2P link1 and link2 of the P2P ID, a set of links in a first group of peer to peer devices. ¶0097, Fig. 12), and
schedules the transmission opportunity using the group ID for the first group (AP may use a basic Trigger Frame which indicates a Buffer Status Report Poll to the P2P ID, group ID. The STA1 notifies the AP of the data accumulation status, a request, in each buffer of the STA identified by the P2P ID specified by the AP. This enables the AP to perform scheduling that takes into account buffer status of each STA included in the P2P link corresponding to the P2P ID, a group ID. ¶¶0102-0103, Fig. 4).
Claims 3, 6, 7, 8, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaya, in view of Parks, in view of Patil, and further in view of Huang et al (US 20220287042 A1, hereinafter “Huang”), in view of Ko et al. (US 20240129866 A1, hereinafter “Ko”)
RE Claim 3, 21, 23, Kanaya and Patil do not explicitly disclose a system, method or computer readable medium:
wherein aggregating the RF capabilities to identify the one or more preferred channels is based at least in part on at least one of:
(i) channel utilization (CU) of the one or more preferred channels,
(ii) received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more preferred channels with respect to the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group), or
(iii) accessibility of the one or more preferred channels across multiple wireless APs.
However Parks discloses:
wherein aggregating the RF capabilities to identify the one or more preferred channels is based at least in part on at least one of:
(iii) accessibility of the one or more preferred channels across multiple wireless APs (First and second peer devices each transmit a list indicating which transmission channels, an aggregation of available channels, they support as a possible group owner. ¶¶0016, 0104-0105, Fig. 3a, 5; First peer device transmits information regarding the capabilities of the first peer device and receiving from the second peer device the capabilities of the second peer device. ¶0021, 0104-0105, Fig. 3a, 5; Each peer may preferentially connect on a DFS channel with low usage or may be configured to prefer any other channels or to select a channel used by a another connected device. ¶0093; Each peer may be configured to order its list of channels in order of preference. ¶0111, Fig. 3a, 3b; Benefit of one list that is functionally two channel lists in a single list. System is able to determine the channels supported a group owner and client and distinguish them from the channels only supported as a client. ¶¶0068-0071, Fig. 3a, 3b).
Kanaya, Patil, and Parks do not explicitly disclose:
wherein aggregating the RF capabilities to identify the one or more preferred channels is based at least in part on at least one of:
(i) channel utilization (CU) of the one or more preferred channels),
(ii) received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more preferred channels with respect to the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group.
However, Huang discloses:
wherein aggregating the RF capabilities to identify the one or more preferred channels is based at least in part on at least one of:
(i) channel utilization (CU) of the one or more preferred channels (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate channel utilization levels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with lower channel utilization levels. ¶0077, Fig. 5),
(ii) received signal strength indicators (RSSIs) of the one or more preferred channels with respect to the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate RSSI values for the scanned channels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with higher RSSI values over those with lower RSSI values. ¶0077, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, receiving indications of RF capabilities from a group of peer to peer devices, with the teachings of Parks, accessibility of channels of the peer to peer devices to determine a set of preferred channels based on capabilities, with the teachings of Huang, determine channel preference based on channel utilization and/or RSSI levels.
The motivation in doing so would be to support a determination of the optimal channels to use in P2P links based on availability, channel utilization, and signal quality levels to optimize improve resource and schedule efficiency. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016, ¶0021, 0104-0105, Fig. 5; Huang, Abstract, ¶¶0004-0008, ¶0077).
RE Claim 6, Kanaya, Patil, and Parks do not explicitly disclose a system, method or computer readable medium:
wherein requesting that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity further comprises requesting the transmission opportunity for each link of the set of links to have a matching duration based at least in part on determining that one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group of peer-to-peer devices support non- simultaneous transmit/receive (NSTR) operations
However, Ko discloses:
wherein requesting that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity further comprises requesting the transmission opportunity for each link of the set of links to have a matching duration based at least in part on determining that one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group of peer-to-peer devices support non- simultaneous transmit/receive (NSTR) operations (STA in eMLSR mode operating with MediumSyncDelay timer, ¶0325; STA operating in NSTR link pair configures MediumSyncDelay timer. ¶0365; STAs on a NSTR link may encounter interference from STA1 into STA2 during a TXOP. ¶¶0295-0296, Fig. 19; To alleviate problem of NSTR link pairs, channel access may be limited for the STA for a predetermined time in order to avoid interference during a TXOP. The predetermined time referred to as MediumSyncDelay. For example, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to an MLD operating in an NSTR link pair. Alternatively, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to an NSTR MLD. In addition, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to a non-AP MLD. ¶0296, Fig. 19 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, assigning identification to a group of peer to peer devices based on RF capabilities, with the teachings of Parks, implementation in hardware with processors and memory, with the teachings of Ko, scheduling of time resources for NSTR and/or eMLSR devices.
The motivation in doing so would be to obtain a hardware device for the method of allocating an identifier based on RF capabilities including STR or NSTR capabilities to improve scheduling to reduce interference between devices. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016; Ko, ¶0288-290.).
RE Claim 7, 22, Kanaya, Patil, and Parks do not explicitly disclose a system, method or computer readable medium:
wherein requesting that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity comprises requesting scheduling of the transmission opportunity on a preferred link of the set of links based at least in part on determining that one or more peer-to-peer devices in a first group of peer-to-peer devices support enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) operations.
However, Ko discloses:
wherein requesting that the AP schedule the transmission opportunity comprises requesting scheduling of the transmission opportunity on a preferred link of the set of links based at least in part on determining that one or more peer-to-peer devices in a first group of peer-to-peer devices support enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) operations (STA in eMLSR mode operating with MediumSyncDelay timer, ¶0325; STA operating in NSTR link pair configures MediumSyncDelay timer. ¶0365; STAs on a NSTR link may encounter interference from STA1 into STA2 during a TXOP. ¶¶0295-0296, Fig. 19; To alleviate problem of NSTR link pairs, channel access may be limited for the STA for a predetermined time in order to avoid interference during a TXOP. The predetermined time referred to as MediumSyncDelay. For example, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to an MLD operating in an NSTR link pair. Alternatively, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to an NSTR MLD. In addition, the STA applying the MediumSyncDelay may belong to a non-AP MLD. ¶0296, Fig. 19 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, assigning identification to a group of peer to peer devices based on RF capabilities, with the teachings of Parks, implementation in hardware with processors and memory, with the teachings of Ko, scheduling of time resources for NSTR and/or eMLSR devices.
The motivation in doing so would be to obtain a hardware device for the method of allocating an identifier based on RF capabilities including STR, NSTR, eMLSR capabilities to improve scheduling of time resources to reduce interference between devices. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016; Ko, ¶0288-290.).
RE Claim 8, Kanaya, Patil, Parks, and Ko do not explicitly disclose a system, method or computer readable medium:
wherein the preferred link is selected based on at least one of:
RSSIs of the preferred link with respect to the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate RSSI values for the scanned channels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with higher RSSI values over those with lower RSSI values. ¶0077, Fig. 5), or
CU of the preferred link (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate channel utilization levels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with lower channel utilization levels. ¶0077, Fig. 5).
However, Huang discloses:
wherein the preferred link is selected based on at least one of:
RSSIs of the preferred link with respect to the one or more peer-to-peer devices in the first group (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate RSSI values for the scanned channels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with higher RSSI values over those with lower RSSI values. ¶0077, Fig. 5), or
CU of the preferred link (STA may determine its preferred channels based on results of a channel scan performed by STA or Client device. Channel scan may indicate channel utilization levels. STA may prefer wireless channels associated with lower channel utilization levels. ¶0077, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kanaya, receiving indications of RF capabilities from a group of peer to peer devices, with the teachings of Parks, accessibility of channels of the peer to peer devices to determine a set of preferred channels based on capabilities, with the teachings of Huang, determine channel preference based on channel utilization and/or RSSI levels, with the teachings of Ko, scheduling of resources for NSTR and/or eMLSR devices.
The motivation in doing so would be to support a determination of the optimal channels to use in P2P links based on availability, channel utilization, and signal quality levels and device type, NSTR or eMLSR, to optimize improve resource, schedule efficiency and reduce interference. (Kanaya, ¶¶0030, 0091, 0097;Parks, Abstract, ¶¶0011-0016, ¶0021, 0104-0105, Fig. 5; Huang, Abstract, ¶¶0004-0008, ¶0077; Ko, ¶0288-29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is directed to the amended limitation “determining, by a first peer-to-peer device, a set of access point(s) (APs) that are visible to each peer-to-peer device of a plurality of peer-to-peer devices in a first group;”. Applicant submits that ‘there is clear difference between requesting a set of links based on “a set of access points (APs) visible to each peer-to-peer device in the first group’ in comparison to the office citation. Office Action, p. 5, cited Patil “AP MLD transmits a frame and a STA MLD receives it”. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least these elements of the claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the elements of a determination of devices ‘that are visible’ is interpreted by the examiner as a wireless communication link of minimum quality that supports exchange of messages between two devices. Examiner interprets a determination of ‘visibility’ as successful exchange of messages at least according to standards for wireless P2P operation. Applicant’s argues that the Office citation of an exchange of messages does not teach this element but does not offer further limitations of what is required to determine ‘visibility’ in comparison to the references. Second, the limitation as written recites a ‘determining, by a first peer-to-peer device, a set of access points(s)’. Examiner interprets ‘a set’ of a plurality as one or more APs are determined to be ‘visible’.
Kanaya discloses the amended limitation, as written. STA1, a first P2P device receives a beacon transmitted from the AP and transmits Association Request to the AP. ¶0062; STA4, a second P2P device, receives a beacon from the AP and transmits an Association Request to the AP. ¶0065; The AP may notify the STA of the range of P2P ID values that the STA can use when the communication device, e.g. a STA, sets up a P2P link. ¶0069; If a BSS (e.g., IBSS, PBSS, or P2P Group) other than the BSS managed by the AP is configured for the P2P link, at least one of the STAs that make up the P2P link belongs to both the AP's infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link. A STA that belongs to both the AP’s infrastructure BSS and the BSS for the P2P link, a group, may participate in both BSSs. ¶0071; Therefore, STAs and APs are ‘visible’ as they successfully communicate by scanning for beacons and perform an association.
Applicant’s second argument is directed to “types of multilink operation (MLO) supported by each peer-to-peer device in the first group”. Applicant further submits that ‘the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least these elements of the claims.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment, as written, recites “determining, by the first peer-to-peer device, one or more types of multi-link operation (MLO) supported by a set of peer-to-peer devices, from the first group, that desire to use a transmission opportunity”. Examiner interprets a type of MLO operation supported by P2P as a configured MLD operation. Further interpretation may consider a case where the MLD devices ‘use the same association configuration, encryption keys, and other ML communication parameters when communicating on one or more of the other communication links associated with the MLDs.’ as disclosed by Patil. Patil further discloses that the ML attribute elements exchanged include indication of STR or non-STR operation, types of MLO.
Patil discloses the subject matter. Various implementations relate generally to multi-link (ML) communications, and specifically to establishing an ML communication session between wireless communication devices. Aspects of the present disclosure provide a single ML association context for a plurality of communication links shared between multiple devices that form a multi-link device (MLD). By providing a single ML association context that can be shared between the MAC-SAP endpoints of the MLD devices, aspects of the present disclosure allow the MLD devices to dynamically switch their communications between different communication links or groups of communication links without disassociating or re-associating with one another. In some implementations, associating with one another on one communication link allows the MLD devices to use the same association configuration, encryption keys, and other ML communication parameters when communicating on one or more of the other communication links associated with the MLDs. ¶0070; STA MLD transmits multilink Association request including additional discovery information for the links to the AP MLD. ¶0139, Fig. 9B; AP MLD receives request and performs ML association operation with the STA MLD based on discovery information. ¶0140, Fig. 9B; Multi Link Attribute elements for discovery, transmitted by AP MLD, includes indication of whether the transmitting devices supports simultaneous transmit-and-receive, STR, or non-STR, types of MLO. ¶0222, Fig. 18: 1820.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240064832 A1 Asterjadhi et al.
“CROSS-LINK SIGNALING FOR MULTI-LINK DEVICES”
This disclosure provides methods, devices, and systems for communicating cross-link multi-link signaling (MLS) control signaling in wireless local area networks (WLANs). In various aspects, an apparatus may generate a frame that includes a header including an MLS subfield that includes a set of bits associated with a respective link of a set of links between the first MLD and a second MLD. The apparatus may configure a signaling type (s-type) of the MLS subfield with a value indicating a type of MLS control signaling associated with the MLS subfield, and may configure each bit of a first subset of bits of the MLS subfield with a value indicating that the type of MLS control signaling is applicable to the respective link associated with the bit. Further, the apparatus may output the first frame for transmission to the second MLD on a first link of the set of links.
US 20240323653 A1 Wang et al.
“METHODS FOR POWER EFFICIENT BROADCASTING IN WLAN”
A method for use in a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), and a non-AP MLD are disclosed. In the method, the non-AP MLD transmits, by a first station (STA) affiliated with the non-AP MLD to a first access point (AP) affiliated with an AP MLD, on a first link, a request for AP assistance, including information regarding a second link for which assistance data is requested. Then, the non-AP MLD receives, by a second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from a second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, on the second link, a trigger frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. LANGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Eastern.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at 1 (571) 270-3125. 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.
/PAUL A. LANGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights