DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 01/21/26 .
Independent claims have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 14-15 have been canceled.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0199551, “Kim”; Kim’s two priority documents, hereinafter, “P’519” for ‘P1’ and “P’318” for ‘P2’, ) in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0209536, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a Traffic Identifier ‘TID’-to-link mapping method, comprising:
- transmitting, by a first Multi-Link Device ‘MLD’, a first TID-to-link mapping response frame to a second MLD (Kim, See Fig.16,
PNG
media_image1.png
296
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See P’318, Fig.18,
PNG
media_image2.png
373
897
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
- wherein the first TID-to-link mapping response frame comprises TID-to-link mapping response information (Kim, See ¶.230, the MLD having received the TID-to-link mapping request frame may need to respond with a TID-to-link mapping response frame to accept/adopt or refuse/reject/deny the TID-to-link mapping requested by the initiating MLD. In this case, the MLD having received the request frame needs to respond with the TID-to-link mapping response frame, and thus the MLD may be referred to as a responding MLD; Kim, See Fig.17,
PNG
media_image3.png
201
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See P’318, Fig.19,
PNG
media_image4.png
250
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
), the TID-to-link mapping response information comprising: type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame and/or a TID-to-link mapping parameter (See ¶.234, the TID-to-link mapping element included in the response frame may indicate a TID and a link that are different from those of the TID-to-link mapping element included in the request frame. For example, the TID-to-link mapping element included in the request frame may indicate that TID 0 corresponds to Link 1. In this case, when the responding MLD indicates, through the TID-to-link mapping element included in the response frame, that TID 0 corresponds to Link 2, the initiating MLD having transmitted the request frame may recognize that the proposal of mapping between TID 0 to Link 1, made by the initiating MLD itself, has been rejected. In addition, the initiating MLD may recognize that the responding MLD desires that TID 0 is mapped to Link 2, by identifying that the response frame transmitted as a response by the responding MLD indicates that TID 0 corresponds to Link2; See ¶.238, a TID-to-link mapping element may be transmitted to be included in a (re)association request/response frame, or may be transmitted through a TID-to-link mapping request/response frame. In this case, the TID-to-link mapping elements included in the two types of response frames may be included to propose preferred TID-to-link mapping to the MLD having transmitted the request frame. Alternatively, a response frame (unsolicited response frame) transmitted without receiving a request frame including the TID-to-link mapping element may be transmitted to propose (indicate) a preferred TID-to-link mapping state to an MLD corresponding to a single destination device of the corresponding frame).
Kim discloses that “the TID-to-link mapping elements included in the two types of response frames (See ¶.238), but does not explicitly disclose the limitation “type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame and/or a TID-to-link mapping parameter.”
However, Guo discloses the limitation “type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame and/or a TID-to-link mapping parameter (Guo, See ¶.248, Table #2, association response frame having 3 different types; See ¶.252, Table #3, association response frame type; See ¶.266, Table #5, reassociation response frame type; See further Table #6, #7, #9, and #10 for response frame types).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame and/or a TID-to-link mapping parameter” as taught by Guo into the system of Kim, so that it provides a way for TID-to-link mapping to be successfully established or not (Guo, See Table #9).
Kim further discloses,
- wherein the first TID-to-link mapping response frame comprises a TID-to-link mapping element for carrying the TID-to-link mapping response information (Kim, See Fig.14, TID-to-Link mapping element; See ¶.238, a TID-to-link mapping element may be transmitted to be included in a (re)association request/response frame, or may be transmitted through a TID-to-link mapping request/response frame. In this case, the TID-to-link mapping elements included in the two types of response frames may be included to propose preferred TID-to-link mapping to the MLD having transmitted the request frame. Alternatively, a response frame (unsolicited response frame) transmitted without receiving a request frame including the TID-to-link mapping element may be transmitted to propose (indicate) a preferred TID-to-link mapping state to an MLD corresponding to a single destination device of the corresponding frame; Kim, See Fig.15,
PNG
media_image5.png
494
763
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See P’318, Fig.17,
PNG
media_image6.png
408
615
media_image6.png
Greyscale
See P’318, Fig.18 cited above for the response information),
but does not explicitly disclose what Guo discloses,
- wherein the TID-to-link mapping element comprises a control field (Guo, See ¶.315 and Fig.11A, FIG. 11A is a schematic diagram of a traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element according to an embodiment of this application. The traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element includes a control (Control) field and a traffic identifier-to-link mapping information (TID-to-Link Mapping info) field;
PNG
media_image7.png
305
784
media_image7.png
Greyscale
):
- the control field comprising a type field for carrying the type indication information and a TID-to-link mapping parameter field for carrying the TID-to-link mapping parameter (See ¶.325 and Figs.12-13, as shown in FIG. 12, a control field includes a mapping request (TID-to-Link Mapping request) field, indicating a type of a frame in which a traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element is located. A length of the field may be 1 bit, where 1 indicates a request, and 0 indicates a response;
PNG
media_image8.png
546
797
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
417
763
media_image9.png
Greyscale
See ¶.326, as shown in FIG. 12, the control field may further include a third preset field, for example, a negotiation type field (or a negotiation mode field, or another name, which is not limited herein), indicating a mode used for negotiating a traffic identifier-to-link mapping. A negotiation type field in the traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element carried in the request frame indicates a mode (namely, the first mode described above) used by a requester to negotiate the traffic identifier-to-link mapping. A negotiation type field in the traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element carried in the response frame indicates a mode (namely, the second mode described above) used by a responder to negotiate the traffic identifier-to-link mapping; See further ¶.327-¶.346 for a negotiation type field and a plurality of parameters;
See Fig.16 and ¶.350-353, FIG. 16 is a schematic diagram of another traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element according to an embodiment of this application. The traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element may be carried in a beacon frame. A control field of the traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element includes a broadcast (Broadcast) field (sixth indication information), indicating that the current traffic identifier-to-link mapping information element carries broadcast traffic-to-link mapping information. In other words, the traffic-to-link mapping information may be sent to multiple stations, and is used by the multiple stations to perform traffic-to-link mapping;
PNG
media_image10.png
425
738
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses “the type indication information indicates that the response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame is a Type 2 response type, wherein the Type 2 response type is a TID-to-link mapping response frame not based on a TID-to-link mapping request frame (See ¶.230, the MLD having received the TID-to-link mapping request frame may need to respond with a TID-to-link mapping response frame to accept/adopt or refuse/reject/deny the TID-to-link mapping requested by the initiating MLD. In this case, the MLD having received the request frame needs to respond with the TID-to-link mapping response frame, and thus the MLD may be referred to as a responding MLD).”
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Guo disclose “the Type 2 response type comprises at least one of: a fifth response type, wherein the fifth response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame comprises a TID-to-link mapping parameter, and the receiving MLD of the fifth response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame sets up the TID-to-link mapping according to the TID-to-link mapping parameter; a sixth response type, wherein the sixth response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame comprises a TID-to-link mapping parameter required by the first MLD, and the receiving MLD of the sixth response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame transmits, to the first MLD, a TID-to-link mapping request for setting up the TID-to-link mapping according to the TID-to-link mapping parameter required by the first MLD; or a seventh response type, wherein the seventh response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame comprises a TID-to-link mapping parameter suggested by the first MLD, and the receiving MLD of the seventh response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame transmits, to the first MLD, a TID-to-link mapping request for setting up the TID-to-link mapping according to the TID-to-link mapping parameter suggested by the first MLD (Kim, See ¶.288, when TID-to-link mapping for a specific TID has been rejected (or counter-proposed) by the responding MLD, the initiating MLD should not request again link mapping identical to the rejected link mapping for a predetermined time. In this case, the predetermined time may be a value determined by a parameter indicated by the AP MLD. In this case, the predetermined time may be a time taken until an unsolicited response frame is received from the responding MLD. In this case, the predetermined time may mean a lifetime; Guo, See Figs.5-8, Figs.10-11, specially Fig.11A-E for TID-to-link mapping element parameters; See Fig.12-13, TID-to-link mapping request parameter field; See Figs.17-18 for a plurality of parameters for TID-to-link mapping; See Table #10, negotiation parameter type field in the response frame). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses “the first TID-to-link mapping response frame is one of: a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, or a reassociation response frame (See Fig.5, ¶.75, and ¶.237, beacon frame or probe response).”
Regarding claim 7, it is a multi-link device (MLD) claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “a processor and a memory (See Fig.3)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 10-12, they are claims corresponding to claims 4-6, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, it is a device claim corresponding to the claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 16-18, they are claims corresponding to claims 4-6, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 19, it is a computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been considered. But, in view of the applicant’s amendment to the claims, examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations, especially for the newly added claim limitations, wherein the dependent claims 2 & 3 are incorporated into independent claim 1, using the prior art of record in the current prosecution of the claims.
At page 11, applicant argues that “the Applicant notes that Kim has four priority documents, i.e., P1-KR20200101519A (2020-08-13), P2-KR20210032318A (2021-03-11), P3-KR20210073933A (2021-06-08) and P4- KR2021010833W (2021-08-13). The priority dates corresponding to P1 and P2 are earlier than the priority date (i.e., 2021- 04-22) of the present application, and the priority dates corresponding to P3 and P4 are later than the priority date of the present application. There are no contents in P1-P3 that are the same as the above contents of Kim. The above contents of Kim cannot be derived from the contents of P1-P2. P4 is a WO family member of Kim, and the paragraphs [0077], [0237], [0241], [0244], [0245] and [0298], and figures 5, 14-17, 20-21 and 24 of P4 are the same as the above contents of Kim. Thus, only the priority date corresponding to P4 can be as the effective filing date of the above contents of Kim. Clearly, the effective filing date (i.e., 2021-08-13) of the above contents of Kim is later than the priority date (i.e., 2021-04-22) of the present application. Thus, the reference document Kim is not eligible, and claims 1-20 would not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Kim. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the above rejections.”
In reply, P1 (Kim’s P’519) includes Figs.5-14 and the related paragraphs of Kim and P2 (Kim’s P’318) includes Figs.1-19 and the related paragraphs of Kim. The Examiner additionally provides the Figures from Kim and P2 (Kim’s P’318) in claim 1 in order to meet the applicant’s request and/or the argument of the priority date issue. Therefore, the examiner has clarified and totally remapped the rejection to the argued claim limitations and newly added claim limitations. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights