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 action is in response to the communication filed on 04/21/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17-19, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Rodriguez et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230217492) in view of Chitrakar et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230156840).
Regarding claim 8 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, a method implemented in a first wireless device, WD read as: “a second MLD”… “comprising communication circuitry” see para. 100, configured to communicate with a second WD read as: “a first MLD… comprising communication circuitry” see para. 100, the first WD including a first multi-link device, MLD, the first MLD including a first plurality of stations, STAs read as: “the MLD is a device that has more than one affiliated STA” see para. 86, the method comprising:
receiving, a request for a measurement para. 45, Fig. 4, “The method comprises receiving 400, from a first MLD, a measurement request to perform channel measurements on at least two channels”;
performing the measurement based at least on the received request para. 45, Fig. 4, “the first COT Channel measurements are performed 420 during the first COT in response to the measurement request”; and
transmitting, a measurement report, the measurement report including at least the performed measurement para. 45, Fig. 4, “A channel status report comprising channel status information based on the channel measurements is transmitted 430 to the first MLD”;
Garcia Rodriguez does not specifically disclose, receiving the request for measurement by one STA of the first plurality of STAs and transmitting the measurement report by another STA of the first plurality of STAs, the measurement report including a plurality of measurements. However, Chitrakar teach, receiving the request for measurement by one STA of the first plurality of STAs “The AP MLD 202 may send a link measurement request 214 on link 1”; see para. 52; and transmitting the measurement report by another STA of the first plurality of STAs, the measurement report including a plurality of measurements, para. 52, “In response, the non-AP MLD 204 transmits a link measurement report 216 and a link measurement report 220 to the AP MLD 202 over link 1 and link 3 respectively”.
Garcia Rodriguez and Chitrakar are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to measurement configuration parameters.
Therefore, 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 Chitrakar in the system of Garcia Rodriguez to allow the system to perform channel measurements on the channel to determine the current conditions for communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish the channel quality to provide the required services.
Regarding claim 9 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the measurement report is transmitted by the STA or another STA of the first plurality of STAs para. 43, Fig. 3, “At least one channel status report is received 330 from at least one MLD of the subset of MLDs”.
Garcia Rodriguez does not specifically disclose, an STA of the first plurality of STAs. However, Chitrakar disclose “a first station (STA) included in a first plurality of STAs”, see para. 5.
Garcia Rodriguez and Chitrakar are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to measurement configuration parameters.
Therefore, 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 Chitrakar in the system of Garcia Rodriguez to allow the system to perform channel measurements on the channel to determine the current conditions for communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to establish the channel quality to provide the required services.
Regarding claim 10 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the measurement is performed by one of:
another STA of the first plurality of STAs that is available to perform the measurement and is different from the STA para. 50, Fig. 5, “in the scenario of FIG. 1, AN 20 may select UEs 10 and 12 to perform the measurements, but not UE 16”; and
at least one predetermined STA of the plurality of STAs. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 11 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the measurement includes one of:
a single measurement performed on a single communication link para. 51, “The (initiating) first MLD may specify channels or links that the (responding) MLD(s) should report about, and indicate these specified channels or links in the measurement request”; and
a plurality of measurements, each measurement of the plurality of measurements being performed on a different communication link. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 12 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the measurement report is transmitted in one of:
a single measurement report frame para. 81, “The STA may then transmit a frame 904 comprising the channel status report”; and
a plurality of measurement report frames. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 13 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the request for the measurement is received by the first MLD, the measurement report is transmitted by the first MLD, and the measurement is performed by one of:
an STA of the first plurality of STAs that is available to perform the measurement para. 50, “in the scenario of FIG. 1, AN 20 may select UEs 10 and 12 to perform the measurements, but not UE 16”; and
at least one predetermined STA of the first plurality of STAs. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 8 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claims 2-6 the limitations of claims 2-6, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 9-13, respectively.
Regarding claim 15 the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 16-18 the limitations of claims 16-18, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 9-11, respectively.
Regarding claim 19 Garcia Rodriguez disclose, wherein the request for the measurement is transmitted by the second MLD (56) and the measurement report is received by the second MLD para. 51, “The MLDs may belong to same wireless access network, such as 802.11 based network or 3GPP based NR-U network. The second MLD and the at least one/third MLD may be associated to the first MLD”. In this example it is considered that both MLDs are in the same network as the communication it is established between at least two multi-link devices in the same group or network of MLDs.
Claim 21 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 15 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claims 22-23 the limitations of claims 22-23, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 9 and 11, respectively.
Regarding claim 25 the limitations of claim 25 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 19.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Rodriguez et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230217492) in view of Chitrakar et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230156840), further in view of Patil et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150350974).
Regarding claim 14 Garcia Rodriguez and Chitrakar does not specifically disclose including: transmitting a refusal to perform the measurement. However, Patil teach, para. 109, “For example, the STA may be too busy to make measurements when the STA receives the request to make the measurements. In a current 802.11k specification, the Measurement Report Element has an incapability indication (e.g., the STA being incapable of measuring) or a refusal indication (e.g., the STA refusing to make measurements)”.
Garcia Rodriguez, Chitrakar and Patil are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to measurement configuration parameters.
Therefore, 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 Patil in the system of Garcia Rodriguez and Chitrakar to allow the system to determine that the user terminal is available or even capable to perform the measurements needed or not. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of the management of the available resources to obtain relevant reports of the medium conditions from capable and available terminals.
Regarding claims 7, 20 and 26 the limitations of claims 7, 20 and 26, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220408506) which disclose(s) method and apparatus for cooperative communication using multi-link in communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights