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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,3,6,8,10,13-15,17 and 19-20 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1,8 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 08/20/2025 on page 12
of applicant's remark regarding Independent Claims, the applicant argues that Kim doesn’t teach first and second element transmitted. The applicant further argues that Kim and Kwon do not teach that the AP MLD uses link information broadcast in advance to determine links.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Kim discloses a beacon (i.e. first element)sent from the AP with TIM (Kim Para[196-197] and DL frame with BSR (i.e. second element))
(Para[0031,0046-51]). The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on the claimed elements and how they are different than the teachings of Kim. Regarding Kim and Kwon not teaching link information broadcast, “It is the claims, not the written description, which define the scope of the patent right.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable... . [T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims—American Perspectives, 21 Int’! Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990)). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The dependent claims 2-7 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 1.
The dependent claims 9-14 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 8.
The dependent claims 16-20 are rejected based upon same motivation and rationale used for claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5,11-12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the claim recites “. . received through each . .” which is unclear to determine how a frame is sent on the multiple links
In claim 10, the claim recites “. . received through each . .” which is unclear to determine how a frame is sent on the multiple links
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3,8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2023/0284144 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”) in view of KWON et al. (US 2021/0144787 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kwon”).
Regarding claims 1,8 and 15, Kim discloses a non-access point multi-link device station (STA) supporting multiple links in a communication system (Kim Fig.1a Para[0046] A STA MLD), comprising: a processor (Kim Fig.1b Para[0046] A processor) and a memory (Kim Fig.1b Para[0046] A memory) storing one or more instructions executable by the processor, wherein the one or more instructions are executed to: receive, by the STA of non-AP MLD (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] A STA1), a first element including a traffic indication map (TIM) through a first link among the multiple links (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] A beacon (i.e. first element) with TIM is sent by the AP and received by the STA1); receive, by the STA of non-AP MLD, second element (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] A DL frame with BSR (i.e. second element) is received), indicating one or more links through which a data unit stored in an AP MLD is to be transmitted (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The BSR for STA2 (i.e. second link)); transmit, through at least one of the one or more links indicated by the second element, a first frame for retrieving the data unit to the AP MLD (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The non-AP MLD sends PS-Poll frame (i.e. first frame)); and receive, by the STA of non-AP MLD, the data unit from the AP MLD through at least one of the one or more links indicated by the second element after transmitting the first frame through the second link (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The data frame is received from the AP MLD on the link2 by the STA2 after sending PS-Poll frame).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the STA MLD with a first STA operating under control of the processor; and a second STA operating under control of the processor; wherein the first element and the second element are broadcast through the first link.
However, Kwon from the same field of invention discloses the STA MLD with a first STA operating under control of the processor (Kwon Fig.1 Para[0051] A STA (i.e. first STA) with a processor); and a second STA operating under control of the processor (Kwon Fig.1 Para[0051] A STA 422 (i.e. second STA) with a processor); wherein the first element and the second element are broadcast through the first link (Kwon Para[0008-9,0057,0089] The two elements are sent by the AP MLD to the non-AP MLD in a broadcast (i.e. beacon) frame on the first link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim to have the feature of “a first STA operating under control of the processor; and a second STA operating under control of the processor; wherein the first element and the second element are broadcast through the first link” as taught by Kwon. The motivation would have been to efficiently communicate signaling information (Kwon Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 2,9 and 16, Kim in view of Kwon discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim further discloses wherein the second element includes a traffic identifier (TID) mapped to the one or more links (Kim Para[0105] The AP MLD sends TID for a link).
Regarding claims 3,10 and 17, Kim in view of Kwon discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim further discloses wherein the first frame is a power saving (PS)-Poll frame, and wherein the first frame is received through each of the one or more links (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The STA MLD sends PS-Poll after receiving the TIM information on the link).
Regarding claims 7,14 and 20, Kim in view of Kwon discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim further discloses wherein the TIM is transmitted through a beacon frame (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] A beacon frame contains TIM). Kwon further discloses the second element is transmitted through a broadcast frame used to indicate the one or more links through which the data unit stored in the AP MLD is to be transmitted (Kwon Para[0008-10,0057,0089] The second element indicates the link information associated with the buffered data).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim to have the feature of “the second element is transmitted through a broadcast frame used to indicate the one or more links through which the data unit stored in the AP MLD is to be transmitted” as taught by Kwon. The motivation would have been to efficiently communicate signaling information (Kwon Para[0002]).
Claims 6,13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim in view of Kwon and further in view of ASTERJADHI et al. (US 2017/0078967 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Asterjadhi”).
Regarding claims 6,13 and 19, Kim in view of Kwon discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim in view of Kwon does not explicitly disclose transmitting a trigger frame to the non-AP MLD through the one or more links indicated by the second element; and receiving the first frame as a response to the trigger frame from the non-AP MLD, wherein the first frame is a power saving (PS)-Poll frame.
However, Asterjadhi from a similar field of invention discloses transmitting a trigger frame to the non-AP MLD through the one or more links indicated by the second element (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A trigger is sent after beacon); and receiving the first frame as a response to the trigger frame from the non-AP MLD (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A PS-Poll (i.e. first frame) is received, wherein the first frame is a power saving (PS)-Poll frame (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A PS-Poll frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kim and Kwon to have the feature of “transmitting a trigger frame to the non-AP MLD through the one or more links indicated by the second element; and receiving the first frame as a response to the trigger frame from the non-AP MLD, wherein the first frame is a power saving (PS)-Poll frame” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been to increase efficiency and throughput (Asterjadhi Para[0078]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights