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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended. In Applicant’s remarks, they do not state that claim 7 has been amended but it was amended. Furthermore, it is suggested that Applicant submit claims in the recommended format, as based on MPEP 608, stating that “Legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and paper can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. This requires a high contrast, with black lines and a white background. Gray lines and/or a gray background sharply reduce photo reproduction quality and if present in application papers, will likely result in a notification (e.g. Notice to File Corrected Application Papers) that the papers are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52. In order to enhance readability of electronic submissions, the USPTO strongly recommends use of a black colored font for text on a white background”. Applicant’s submission shows the amended text being in a gray format rather than black and optical character recognition does not work properly with what Applicant submitted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/21/2026 regarding rejection of claims has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, based on the amendments, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been added, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Applicant argued " In the cited passages (and elsewhere), Chitrakar describes a multi-link communication framework in which a Block Ack Request (BAR) is transmitted on a given link and the corresponding Block Ack is transmitted on the same link. As acknowledged by the Office in the Office Action, Chitrakar's disclosure is rooted in a per- ink Block Ack operation, in which Block Ack solicitation and response are tied to the same link”; “Chitrakar consistently teaches a same-link Block Ack operation, in which a Block Ack responsive to a Block Ack Request is transmitted on the same link on which the Block Ack Request is received”; “Importantly, Chitrakar does not disclose or suggest selecting a different link, independent of the BAR reception link, for transmitting a Block Ack, nor does it disclose transmitting a Block Ack on such a selected link with a consolidated receiving status across multiple links. Accordingly, the newly added limitations of amended Claims 1 and 20 are not disclosed in Chitrakar, and Claims 1 and 20 are therefore novel under 35 U.S.C. §102”; and “Chitrakar emphasizes maintaining per-link transmission consistency, including per-link Block Ack solicitation and response, in order to preserve orderly buffer management and predictable MAC-layer behavior (see, e.g., paragraphs [0047] and [0138]). This design choice inherently discourages transmitting a Block Ack on a different link from the BAR reception link, as doing so would complicate per-link coordination and buffer handling under Chitrakar's framework” (Pages 14-15 and 17 of Reply).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as stated below in the 112 rejection, Applicant’s claims are not being interpreted as Applicant thinks they should be interpreted as the terminology used in the claim amendments does not appear anywhere within the specification. Based on the portions of the specification that Applicant feels supports this amendment, the explanation of how the claims should be interpreted are provided in the 112 rejection, as shown below. Given how the claims are being interpreted due to the amendment, Applicant’s arguments are not on-point as the claim meaning does not apply to the argument presented. Furthermore, as stated in the prior Office action, Chitrakar teaches “a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link” (Para. 0054). Chitrakar further teaches “The multi-link originator 302 subsequently transmits a multi-link BlockAckReq 542 to the multi-link recipient 304 on a different link (e.g., on the primary 5 GHz link) to solicit the multi-link Block Ack 544 which carries a consolidated BA bitmap acknowledging the frames received on the 6 GHz bands. Thus, it can be seen that in accordance with the present embodiments, a Traffic Stream is setup across multiple links using a single Multi-link ADDTS frame exchange 512, 514 on any one link. The Block Ack is also setup across multiple links using a single Multi-link ADDBA frame exchange 522, 524 on any one link. In addition, in accordance with present embodiments, a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link” (Para. 0054), which shows that a BlockACK can be sent on a different link that the link which receives the BlockAckReq. Thus, Chitrakar further teaches the amended claims as both Applicant interprets the claims and also with how examiner interprets the claims.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and, therefore, the rejections of the independent claims are hereby maintained as well as the dependent claims depending from the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, they recite “selecting a link from the one or more enabled links for transmitting a Block Ack independently of a link on which a corresponding Block Ack request (BAR) is received”. Therefore, it is not clear to the Examiner what it means to select a link “independently” of a link on which a BAR is received since the words independent or independently are never mentioned in the specification or the as-filed claims and no other words that are synonymous can be ascertained in those or other paragraphs. Para. 0040 of the published application states “The originator MLD 1 may determine the retransmission reliability of a link based on the number of BAs for retransmission of missing MAC packets on that link and may determine different link(s) for the retransmission of missing MAC packets” but this does not mention the BAR and BA being on different links. Applicant points to paras. 67-79 as providing support for the amendment but examiner does not agree. Paras. 70-77 state consolidating the receiving status but there is no mention of the links being independent in some fashion. Paras. 70-77 state “Moreover, process 1400 may involve processor 1312 transmitting, on the selected link, to the other MLD a Block Ack with a consolidated receiving status in response to receiving a BAR from the other MLD. In some implementations, the selected link may be among one or more ongoing communication links protected by a current TXOP which comprises a period reserved for transmission between the MLD and the other MLD. Alternatively, the selected link may not be among one or more ongoing communication links protected by the current TXOP”, or something similar so it appears that the selected link is chosen based on other criteria and is not based only on what link the BAR is received. The “selected link may be among one or more ongoing communication links protected by a current TXOP” which shows that if the BAR is received among the one or more ongoing links protected by the TXOP, it could transmit the Block Ack on the same link if it is one of the one or more ongoing links or it could be another one of the one or more ongoing links. Therefore, the claims will be interpreted where the selected link is chosen from one of the enabled link which could be the link the BAR is received or any other enabled link.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chitrakar et al (US2023/0011167 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Chitrakar teaches a method/apparatus implementable in a multi-link device (MLD) (Abstract), comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly; and a processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform, via the transceiver, operations comprising (Para. 0145):
establishing, by a processor of a multi-link device (MLD), a block acknowledgement (Block Ack) agreement or a protected Block Ack agreement with one other MLD on one or more enabled links for dynamic link selection (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0084, and 0099; a single block ack agreement may be negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links. The block ack agreement may be represented by the tuple of { an Originator MLD MAC address, a Recipient MLD MAC address and a TID}. Further, a multi-link block ack agreement may be negotiated by exchanging a single pair of ADDBA Request/Response frames over any one of the enabled links between two MLDs); and
communicating, by the processor, with the other MLD on at least one of the one or more enabled links prior to termination of the Block Ack agreement or the protected Block Ack agreement (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0084, 0099, and 0138; Once the TS and BA have been setup in each link, the data transmissions and corresponding BA transmission can take place in each link; a single block ack agreement may be negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links; The circuitry 2714 may be configured to store the frames in the common transmit buffer until they are acknowledged by the second multi-link device as successfully received or until they are discarded at the end of a MAC Service Data Unit (MSDU) lifetime),
wherein the communicating comprises; selecting a link from the one or more enabled links for transmitting a Block Ack independently of a link on which a corresponding Block Ack request (BAR) is received; and transmitting, on the selected link, a Block Ack with a consolidating receiving status across multiple links (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0079, 0084, 0096, 0099, and 0138; The multi-link originator 302 subsequently transmits a multi-link BlockAckReq 542 to the multi-link recipient 304 on a different link (e.g., on the primary 5 GHz link) to solicit the multi-link Block Ack 544 which carries a consolidated BA bitmap acknowledging the frames received on the 6 GHz bands. Thus, it can be seen that in accordance with the present embodiments, a Traffic Stream is setup across multiple links using a single Multi-link ADDTS frame exchange 512, 514 on any one link. The Block Ack is also setup across multiple links using a single Multi-link ADDBA frame exchange 522, 524 on any one link. In addition, in accordance with present embodiments, a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 2, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating comprises: wherein the selected link is among one or more ongoing communication links protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP) which comprises a period reserved for transmission between the MLD and the other MLD (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0079, 0084, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 3, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating comprises: wherein the selected link is not among one or more ongoing communication links protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0079, 0084, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; Partial state Block Ack saves memory but increases the risk that the Block Ack Scoreboard may be overwritten by another Block Ack session in a next Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) and hence requires special handling to prevent loss of data).
Regarding claim 4, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating comprises: wherein the selected link is among one or more ongoing communication links protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0079, 0084, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 5, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the corresponding BAR comprises a deferred retransmission indication, and wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on an ongoing communication link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 6, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the corresponding BAR comprises a deferred retransmission indication from the other MLD, and wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on a link not protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 8, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the Block Ack indicates a recommended link for retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the recommend link comprises an ongoing communication link protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 9, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving a retransmission of the missing data packet from the other MLD on the recommended link (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 10, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the Block Ack indicates a recommended link for retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the recommend link is not an ongoing communication link protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 11, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving a retransmission of the missing data packet from the other MLD on the recommended link after the other MLD successfully acquired access to a medium on the recommended link (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 12, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the Block Ack indicates one or more recommended links for duplicating retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the one or more recommend links are among ongoing communication links protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer).
Regarding claim 13, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving duplicated retransmissions of the missing data packet from the other MLD on the one or more recommended links (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 14, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further wherein the Block Ack is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the Block Ack indicates one or more recommended links for duplicating retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the one or more recommend links are not among ongoing communication links protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 15, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving duplicated retransmissions of the missing data packet from the other MLD on the one or more recommended links after the other MLD successfully acquired access to media on the one or more recommended links (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 16, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further wherein the communicating comprises: transmitting a BAR to the other MLD, wherein the BAR is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the BAR indicates one or more recommended links for retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the one or more recommend links are among ongoing communication links protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 17, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving, from the other MLD, a Block Ack with a confirmation of the one or more recommended links for retransmission of one or more missing data packets (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 18, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further wherein the communicating comprises: transmitting a BAR to the other MLD, wherein the BAR is transmitted on a link protected by a current transmission opportunity (TXOP), wherein the BAR indicates one or more recommended links for retransmission of a missing data packet, and wherein the one or more recommend links are not among ongoing communication links protected by the current TXOP (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Regarding claim 19, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims. Chitrakar further teaches wherein the communicating further comprises: receiving, from the other MLD, a Block Ack with a confirmation of the one or more recommended links for retransmission of one or more missing data packets (Figs. 2-5; Paras. 0047, 0054, 0070-0073, 0077-0079, 0084-0086, 0094-0096, 0099, and 0138; a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link, and failed frames 536 c may be re-transmitted 538 on a different link; the stations affiliated with the originator MLD may store frames in the per-link transmit buffer only for the duration of a transmit opportunity (TXOP). In other words, frames are stored for a longer duration in the common transmit buffer compared to the per-link transmit buffer; recipient MLD contains a common receive reordering buffer control per {Originator MLD MAC address, TID} and is responsible for recording and reordering the MSDUs/A-MSDUs arriving from each of the affiliated STAs, as well as identifying and discarding duplicate frames).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al (US2023/0011167 A1) in view of Song et al (US 2022/0385403 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chitrakar teaches the limitations of the previous claims.
However, while Chitrakar teaches poor link quality can cause packets to not be received correctly (Para. 0085), he does not specifically disclose wherein the Block Ack includes signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) information on one or more corresponding links.
Song teaches a receiving device may receive a Block Acknowledgment Request (BAR) frame including information related to a link for which an ACK is requested (Abstract). He further teaches wherein the Block Ack includes signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) information on one or more corresponding links (Para. 0089; association response frame may include, for example, information related to various capabilities, a status code, an association ID (AID), a supported rate, an enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) parameter set, a received channel power indicator (RCPI), a received signal-to-noise indicator (RSNI), a mobility domain, a timeout interval (association comeback time), an overlapping BSS scanning parameter, a TIM broadcast response, and a QoS map).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Song with the teachings as in Chitrakar. The motivation for doing so would have been to flexibly receive desired ACK information through a desired link (Song at para. 0006).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT KRUEGER whose telephone number is (303)297-4238. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/KENT KRUEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474