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 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 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 Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
1. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/2025 on page 8
of applicant's remark regarding Claims 1,8,15, the applicant argues that Kim fails to teach transmitting a first and second element.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's
arguments for the following reasons: Kim discloses a first element with TIM (Kim Fig.8 196-197 A beacon with TIM) and second element i.e. DL data with buffer status report having TID with link information (Kim Fig.8 196-197 A DL frame + BSR). Kim shows that the beacon and DL frame/BSR are used to indicate a link which will be used for sending data (Kim 119,124,126,129), in turn the non-AP STA activates the link to receive the downlink data. The applicant here also fails to provide specific information on a one or multiple messages are sent by the AP MLD for first and second elements to distinguish the claimed inventions from Kim’s teachings. 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.
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 1-4,8-11 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 Ryu et al. (US 2024/0422674 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ryu”).
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 first STA (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 first STA, second element (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] A DL frame with BSR (i.e. second element) is received), indicating a second link through which a data unit stored in an AP MLD is transmitted (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The BSR for STA2); and in response to the TIM indicating that the data unit to be transmitted to the non-AP MLD exists (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The TIM information for STAs transitioning to awake state (i.e. data exist)), receive, by the second STA, the data unit from the AP MLD through the second link indicated by the second element among the multiple links (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The data frame is received from the AP MLD on the link2 by the STA2).
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.
However, Ryu from the same field of invention discloses the STA MLD with a first STA operating under control of the processor (Ryu Fig.2,4 Para[0046,0063] A STA 421 (i.e. first STA) with a processor); and a second STA operating under control of the processor (Ryu Fig.2,4 Para[0046,0063] A STA 422 (i.e. second STA) with a processor).
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” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been to reduce contention and save power (Ryu Para[0052]).
Regarding claims 2,9 and 16, Kim in view of Ryu discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim further discloses wherein the first information 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 Ryu discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim further discloses receiving a power saving (PS)-Poll frame from the second device through the one or more links indicated by the first information, wherein the data unit is transmitted when the PS- Poll frame is received from the second device (Kim Fig.20 Para[0196-197] The STA MLD sends PS-Poll after receiving the TIM information. The AP MLD sends data frame after receiving the PS-Poll frame).
Regarding claims 4,11 and 18, Kim in view of Ryu discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Ryu further discloses wherein the PS-Poll frame is received after a first time from a time of transmitting the first information, and the first time is set to prevent collision between frames (Ryu Fig.18 Para[0166-169] The PS-Poll frame is sent after the trigger (i.e. first information)).
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 “wherein the PS-Poll frame is received after a first time from a time of transmitting the first information, and the first time is set to prevent collision between frames” as taught by Ryu. The motivation would have been to reduce contention and save power (Ryu Para[0052]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim in view of Ryu and further in view of Ouchi (US 2022/0272631 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ouchi”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Kim in view of Ryu discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim in view of Ryu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first time is set to a time longer than a time required for link state transition in the second device.
However, Ouchi from a similar field of invention discloses wherein the first time is set to a time longer than a time required for link state transition in the second device (Ouchi Fig.4 Para[0044] The TWT1 is smaller than the TWT SP).
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 Ryu to have the feature of “wherein the first time is set to a time longer than a time required for link state transition in the second device” as taught by Ouchi. The motivation would have been to suppress interference (Ouchi Para[0002]).
Claims 6,13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim in view of Ryu 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 Ryu discloses the methods, the STA MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claims 1,8,15. Kim in view of Ryu does not explicitly disclose transmitting a trigger frame to the second device through the one or more links indicated by the first information; and receiving a PS-Poll frame as a response to the trigger frame from the second device, wherein the data unit is transmitted when the PS-Poll frame is received from the second device.
However, Asterjadhi from a similar field of invention discloses transmitting a trigger frame to the second device through the one or more links indicated by the first information (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A trigger is sent after beacon); and receiving a PS-Poll frame as a response to the trigger frame from the second device (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A PS-Poll is received), wherein the data unit is transmitted when the PS-Poll frame is received from the second device (Asterjadhi Fig.8,8A Para[0075-76] A DL data is received).
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 Ryu to have the feature of “transmitting a trigger frame to the second device through the one or more links indicated by the first information; and receiving a PS-Poll frame as a response to the trigger frame from the second device, wherein the data unit is transmitted when the PS-Poll frame is received from the second device” as taught by Asterjadhi. The motivation would have been to increase efficiency and throughput (Asterjadhi Para[0078]).
Claims 7,14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim in view of Ryu and further in view of DONG (US 2023/0171691 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Dong”).
Regarding claims 7,14 and 20, Kim in view of Ryu 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). Kim in view of Ryu does not explicitly disclose the first information is transmitted through a broadcast frame or a unicast frame.
However, Dong from a similar field of invention discloses the first information is transmitted through a broadcast frame or a unicast frame (Dong Fig.5,6 Para[0055-56] The TWT data frame (i.e. first information) is sent by unicast or broadcasted by the AP).
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 Ryu to have the feature of “the first information is transmitted through a broadcast frame or a unicast frame” as taught by Dong. The motivation would have been to support TWT for multilink operation (Dong Para[0029]).
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