Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
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 (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 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)(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 1-3, 5-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by CHITRAKAR et al. (Patent No: US 2023/0232276 A1), hereinafter CHITRAKAR.
Regarding Claim 1, CHITRAKAR teaches,
A method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising: -Fig. 2; Paragraph [0043] (Fig. 2 shows communication between AP-MLD (202) and Non AP-MLD (204) or STA. [0043] recites, “For example, a STA may be a laptop, a desktop personal computer (PC), a personal digital assistant (PDA), an access point or a Wi-Fi phone in a wireless local area network (WLAN) environment. The STA may be fixed or mobile. In the WLAN environment, the terms “STA”, “wireless client”, “user”, “user device”, and “node” are often used interchangeably.”)
receiving, by a non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD), a beacon frame from an AP MLD; -Paragraph [0004] ([0004] recites, “In multi-link operations between an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) and non-AP MLDs, a traffic indication map (TIM) element is carried in Beacon frames, TIM frames etc., to indicate buffered traffic (BU) for associated non-AP STAs operating in power save (PS) node. “ As explained above, the receiving MLD (STA) receives beacon frame from transmitting MLD, i.e., AP-MLD.)
and decoding, by the non-AP MLD, the beacon frame; wherein the beacon frame includes a Link Mapping Bitmap (LMB) element, wherein the LMB element includes a first field and a second field, -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0056] (Fig. 3 shows TIM bitmap and LMB bitmap corresponding to non-AP STA/MLD’s AID. [0056] recites, “FIG. 3 depicts a TIM bitmap 300 in a TIM element and a set of LMBs 302. Each bit in the TIM bitmap, except AID 0, corresponds to a non-AP STA/MLD's AID. TIM bits corresponding to AIDs of 12, 28, 35, 57 and 77 are set to 1 indicating that the AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to the corresponding STAs/MLDs associated with the AIDs (first field). One LMB (second field) exists for each bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 300. This is for non-AP MLDs to calculate its position of their LMB in the LMB set 302 based on the order of bits set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 300.” As shown in Fig. 3, LMB bitmap represents which link has buffered frame to transmit. Fig. 3 is identical to Fig. 15 of the Spec. and the concept is same. Fig. 12 further optimizes the bit requirement.)
wherein the first field includes information on whether or not a link bitmap is present, -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0056] ([0056] recites, “…Each bit in the TIM bitmap, except AID 0, corresponds to a non-AP STA/MLD's AID. TIM bits corresponding to AIDs of 12, 28, 35, 57 and 77 are set to 1 indicating that the AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to the corresponding STAs/MLDs associated with the AIDs. One LMB exists for each bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 300…”)
wherein the second field includes information on a link bitmap for a specific non-AP MLD, wherein the information on the link bitmap for the specific non-AP MLD includes first and second information, wherein the first information is a one-bit aggregated traffic indicator on whether or not traffic for a Traffic Identifier (TID) mapped to all links used by the specific non-AP MLD is present, wherein the second information is a per-link bitmap whether or not traffic for a TID mapped to each link used by the specific non-AP MLD is present, wherein the one-bit aggregated traffic indicator is located before the per-link bitmap, -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0056-0057] ([0057] recites, “When a non-AP MLD identifies in the TIM element that the TIM bit corresponding to the non-AP MLD's AID is set to 1, the non-AP MLD further checks the LMB corresponding to the AID and identifies the specific link(s) that the buffered traffic is mapped to. For example, the non-AP MLD with an AID of 28 identifies its TIM bit is set to 1 and thus the AP MLD has its buffered traffic in one of its enabled links. The non-AP MLD then identifies its LMB is second in order (second bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap) and checks the second LMB in the set of LMBs 302. The non-AP MLD then identifies that the second bit and third bit of its LMB are set to 1 indicating the AP MLD has buffered traffic for the non-AP MLD in Link 2 and Link 3.” Fig. 3 is identical to Fig. 15 of the Spec. and the procedure is also the same. The first information is the TIM bit and when set to 1, indicates the non-AP MLD with corresponding AID has buffered traffic in at least one of the links and LMB bitmap dictates which links have buffered traffic. One-bit aggregated traffic indicator TIM bit is located before per-link bit map (LMB bitmap) as shown in Fig. 3)
and wherein, based on the specific non-AP MLD using first to third links and traffic for a TID mapped to all the first to third links being present, the one-bit aggregated traffic indicator is set to 1. -Fig. 3; Paragraph [0056-0057] ([0056-0057] recites, “FIG. 3 depicts a TIM bitmap 300 in a TIM element and a set of LMBs 302. Each bit in the TIM bitmap, except AID 0, corresponds to a non-AP STA/MLD's AID. TIM bits corresponding to AIDs of 12, 28, 35, 57 and 77 are set to 1 indicating that the AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to the corresponding STAs/MLDs associated with the AIDs. One LMB exists for each bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 300. This is for non-AP MLDs to calculate its position of their LMB in the LMB set 302 based on the order of bits set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 300. Conventionally, LMB is needed even for a legacy STA to ensure non-AP MLDs can correctly find their LMB since it is not possible to identify legacy STAs based on the TIM bitmap 300. In one example, the number of bits in one LMB corresponds to the number of enabled links for the non-AP MLD.” [0057] recites, “For example, the non-AP MLD with an AID of 28 identifies its TIM bit is set to 1 and thus the AP MLD has its buffered traffic in one of its enabled links. The non-AP MLD then identifies its LMB is second in order (second bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap) and checks the second LMB in the set of LMBs 302. The non-AP MLD then identifies that the second bit and third bit of its LMB are set to 1 indicating the AP MLD has buffered traffic for the non-AP MLD in Link 2 and Link 3.” One bit aggregated traffic indicator is the TIM bit and when set to 1 as explained above dictates that non-AP MLD has buffered traffic and the particular link/links are dictated by the LMB bitmap as described above. Fig. 3 and Fig. 15 of the spec. are identical)
Regarding Claim 2, CHITRAKAR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
CHITRAKAR further teaches,
The method of The method of wherein the specific non-AP MLD is selected as a second non-APMLD among non-APMLDs based on the first field, wherein the non-AP MLDs are non-AP MLDs for an Association Identifier (AID) corresponding to a bit set to 1 in a Traffic Indication Map (TIM) bitmap,-Fig. 3, 12; Paragraph [0080](Fig. 12 shows TIM bitmap corresponding to different AIDs and a TIM bit set to 1 indicated AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to the corresponding receiving MLD (STAs). [0080] recites, “In the TIM bitmap 1200, TIM bits corresponding to AIDs of 12, 28, 35, 57 and 77 assigned to MLD 1, MLD 2, Legacy 1, MLD 3 and Single Link MLD 4 respectively are set to 1 indicating that the AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to those STA/MLDs…”
wherein the second non-AP MLD is a non-AP MLD corresponding to the bit set to 1 in the first field. -Paragraph [0080] ([0080] recites, “….MLD 1, MLD 2, Legacy 1, MLD 3 and Single Link MLD 4 respectively are set to 1 indicating that the AP MLD has one or more buffered frame to transmit to those STA/MLDs…”
Regarding Claim 3, CHITRAKAR teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
CHITRAKAR further teaches,
The method of claim 2, wherein a size of the first field is equal to a number of bits set to 1 in the TIM bitmap. -Fig. 3, 12; Paragraph [0056-0057, 0080] ([0080] recites, “The LMB presence bitmap 1202 carries a bit for every bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap 1200 in the same order as in the TIM bitmap 1200, hence the LMB presence bitmap 1202 has a total size of five bits.” As shown in Fig. 12, Number of 1 in TIM bitmap is 1 and therefore, size of the first field (LMB presence bitmap) is also 5)
Regarding Claim 5, CHITRAKAR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
CHITRAKAR further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein, based on the specific non-AP MLD using first to third links and traffic for a TID mapped to each of the first and second links is present, the second information includes a first bit for the first link, a second bit for the second link, and a third bit for the third link, wherein the first and second bits are set to 1, wherein the third bit is set to 0. -Fig. 3, 12; Paragraph [0056-0057, 0082] (If the LMB presence bit for a specific non-AP MLD is set to 1, A set of LMB (second indication) will have bits equal to the number of links available for BUs of TIDs and, a 1 indicates that link is available for receiving BUs corresponding to the specific receiving MLD (STA). In the example shown in Fig. 12, for MLD 3, BUs of TID are mapped to link 1 and link 2 and therefore, first and second bits of set of LMB are set to 1 and the third bit is set to 0. LMB set is set to 110 as shown for MLD 3)
Regarding Claim 6, CHITRAKAR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
CHITRAKAR further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the LMB element further includes a third field, wherein the third field includes information on a length of the link bitmap for the specific non-AP MLD, wherein the length of the link bitmap for the specific non-AP MLD is determined based on a number of links used by the specific non-AP MLD. -Fig. 3, 12, 26; Paragraph [0135] [0082] ([0135] recites, “FIG. 26 depicts an example format of Multi-link TIM element 2600 including a Multi-link TIM bitmap. The Multi-link TIM 2600 comprises an Element field, a Length field, an Element ID Extension field, a Multi-link Control field comprising a Type field set to “Multi-link TIM” and a Presence Bitmap field, a Common Info field and a Link Info field.”[0082] recites, “The LMB set 1204 carries a LMB for every bit set to 1 in the LMB presence bitmap 1202 in the same order as in the LMB presence bitmap 1202. In this case, each LMB comprises three bits corresponding to three different links (Link 1, Link 2, Link 3)….. In this case, the first LMB of the LMB set 1204 corresponding to MLD 2 has its second bit and third bit set to 1 indicating the BUs for MLD 2 are available in Link 2 and Link 3.” As explained above, length of the link bitmap for specific MLD (in this case MLD2) is the number of links a specific receiving MLD can use to receive data, in this example, it is three, i.e., receiving MLD 2 may receive BUs Link 1, 2, or 3 depending on the bit setting in the bitmap.)
Claim 7 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 1 which is rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim1. Claim 7 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
CHITRAKAR further teaches,
A non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the non-APMLD comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor being operatively connected to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to: -Fig. 8; Paragraph [0069] ([0069] recites, “FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram illustrating an example configuration of a communication apparatus 800 in accordance with the present disclosure. The communication apparatus 800 may be implemented as an AP and a STA and configured for multi-link traffic indication map in accordance with the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 8, the communication apparatus 800 may include circuitry 814, at least one radio transmitter 802, at least one radio receiver 804, and at least one antenna 812 (for the sake of simplicity, only one antenna is depicted in FIG. 8 for illustration purposes). The circuitry 814 may include at least one controller 806 for use in software and hardware aided execution of tasks that the at least one controller 806 is designed to perform, including control of communications with one or more other communication apparatuses in a multiple input and multiple output (MIM0) wireless network. The circuitry 814 may furthermore include at least one transmission signal generator 808 and at least one receive signal processor 810. The at least one controller 806 may control the at least one transmission signal generator 808 for generating MAC frames (for example Data frames, Management frame and Action frames) to be sent through the at least one radio transmitter 802 and the at least one receive signal processors 810 for processing MAC frames (for example Data frames, Management frame and Action frames) received through the at least one radio receiver 804 from the one or more other communication apparatuses…”)
Claim 8 is essentially the same as Claim 1, except Claim 8 is looked from transmitting MLD (AP-MLD) perspective (i.e., Transmitting MLD generate/transmit) vs. Claim 1 is looked from receiving MLD (non AP-MLD/STA) perspective (i.e., receiving MLD receives) and Claim 1 is rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1
Claim 9 is essentially same as Claim 2. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 2 which is rejected above. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 2.
Claim 10 is essentially same as Claim 3. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 3 which is rejected above. Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 3.
Claim 12 is essentially same as Claim 5. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 5 which is rejected above. Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 5.
Claim 13 is essentially same as Claim 6. Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 6 which is rejected above. Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner regretfully maintains the rejection.
The Applicant argues,
First In contrast to Chitrakar, the claimed one-bit aggregated traffic indicator is set to 1 based on a determination that traffic for the TID is mapped to all links used by the specific non-AP MLD. Thus, the claimed indicator represents a fundamentally different condition from the TIM bit in Chitrakar.
Specifically, Chitrakar's TIM bit indicates buffered traffic in any one of the enabled links, whereas Applicant's claimed aggregated traffic indicator indicates traffic mapped to all links used by the non-AP MLD. (Page 9-10)
The Examiners response is the following:
The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. In fact mapping of AID with TIM bit and LMB of this invention is same as the reference Chitrakar. Fig. 3 of the prior art is identical to Fig. 15-17 etc. of the Spec. (for different illustration).
-Fig. 3; Paragraph [0056-0057] ([0057] recites, “When a non-AP MLD identifies in the TIM element that the TIM bit corresponding to the non-AP MLD's AID is set to 1, the non-AP MLD further checks the LMB corresponding to the AID and identifies the specific link(s) that the buffered traffic is mapped to. For example, the non-AP MLD with an AID of 28 identifies its TIM bit is set to 1 and thus the AP MLD has its buffered traffic in one of its enabled links. The non-AP MLD then identifies its LMB is second in order (second bit set to 1 in the TIM bitmap) and checks the second LMB in the set of LMBs 302. The non-AP MLD then identifies that the second bit and third bit of its LMB are set to 1 indicating the AP MLD has buffered traffic for the non-AP MLD in Link 2 and Link 3.” Fig. 3 is identical to Fig. 15 of the Spec. and the procedure is also the same. The first information is the TIM bit and when set to 1, indicates the non-AP MLD with corresponding AID has buffered traffic in at least one of the links and LMB bitmap dictates which links have buffered traffic. One-bit aggregated traffic indicator TIM bit is located before per-link bit map (LMB bitmap) as shown in Fig. 3)
The Applicant have re-phrased aggregated traffic indicator, however, any ordinary person with the skill in the art will understand that it is the same as TIM bit and based on the LMB bitmap any or all three links can have buffered traffic similar to Fig. 15-17 (of the spec.) scenarios. Also, the structure of Fig. 3 of the prior-art is identical to Fig. 15-17.
The Applicant argues,
Second, the amended claim further defines a specific signaling structure in which the aggregated traffic indicator is positioned before a per-link bitmap. The per-link bitmap includes bits corresponding to each link used by the specific non-AP MLD and indicates whether traffic mapped to each respective link is present.
However, Chitrakar does not disclose a single aggregated indicator representing whether traffic is mapped to all links, nor does it disclose such an indicator preceding a per-link bitmap representing link-specific mapping. Rather, Chitrakar employs a hierarchical bitmap mechanism in which: a) the TIM bitmap indicates the presence of buffered traffic for a STA/MLD, and b) a corresponding LMB indicates buffered traffic on a per-link basis. (Page 11)
The Examiners response is the following:
The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. As shown in Fig. 3, the signaling structure is identical to the present invention (Fig. 15-17 of the spec.) where the aggregate traffic indicator TIM bit is positioned before LMB (per-link) bitmap, same as in Fig. 15-17 of the spec. and also for each set TIM bit to 1, LMB bitmap consists of three bits (one for each link) and carry buffered traffic on one or more or all links depending on whether the bit is set to 1 in LMB bitmap.
The Applicant argues,
Third, because the claimed aggregated indicator summarizes the presence of traffic mapped to all links using a single bit positioned before the per-link bitmap, the claimed structure provides a compact signaling mechanism that allows a receiving device to quickly determine whether traffic is mapped across all links before parsing the detailed per-link bitmap. Such a signaling structure and functionality are neither disclosed nor suggested in Chitrakar. (Page 11)
The Examiners response is the following:
The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant. Compact signaling is addressed and aggregated indicator is present before per-link bitmap as shown in Fig. 3, 12 etc. Also, signaling overhead is further reduced from 15 bits to 11 bits in Fig. 12 structure.
Therefore, with the above analysis, the examiner regretfully maintains the rejection status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights