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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 14-16, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (US 2021/0211235 A1) in view of Hedayat (US 2016/0330714 A1) and further in view of Jang et al (US Patent No. 7,599,363 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a multi-link communication method (Fig. 14), comprising:
determining a first message frame (Fig. 4, block acknowledgment request), wherein the first message frame comprises bitmap information (Fig. 8, solicitated block acknowledgment bitmap size 806 is added to BAR information field 800 of the block acknowledgment request, illustrated in Fig. 4), the bitmap information indicates a length of a bitmap of a block acknowledgement fed back (63rd paragraph, a value carried in the solicited BA bitmap size field indicates the solicited BA bitmap size, e.g., 0 indicates 32, 1 indicates 64, 2 indicates 128, 3 indicates 256, 4 indicates 512 and so on. Herein, the value indicates the maximum number of MSDUs and/or aggregated MSDUs that can be acknowledged, see TABLE in 78th paragraph); and
sending the first message frame (Fig. 14, block 1402, a first multi-link device transmits a request for block ACK response to a second multi-link device, wherein, the request is a block acknowledgment request).
Chu discloses that the first message frame further comprises at least one traffic identification (TID) (Fig. 4, multi-TID 418 and/or TID INFO 426). Chu does not disclose that wherein the first message further comprises at least one association identifier (AID) of at least one station corresponding to each TID. Hedayat discloses that the MU BAR frame has the same structure as multi-TID BlockAck frame but with the following differences: if a multi-TID BlockAck frmae is used, the “Per-TID info” has the identification of each STA (AID) that is expected to respond (187th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TID-AID info in MU BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Hedayat, to indicate expected responses from stations in a multi-user environment.
Chu does not disclose that the bitmap information is included in a block acknowledgement request control field of the first message frame. Jang discloses that information about bitmap size is included in a control field of the block acknowledgement request frame (col. 18, lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate bitmap size in control field of BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Jang, to indicate size of the bitmap of acknowledgment.
Regarding claim 2, Chu discloses that wherein the length indicated by the bitmap information is configured to correspond to a number of Media Access Control Service Data Units (MSDUs) or Aggregate-MSDUs (A-MSDUs) whose reception states need to be fed back (63rd paragraph, a value carried in the solicited BA bitmap size field indicates the solicited BA bitmap size, e.g., 0 indicates 32, 1 indicates 64, 2 indicates 128, 3 indicates 256, 4 indicates 512 and so on. Herein, the value indicates the maximum number of MSDUs and/or aggregated MSDUs that can be acknowledged, see TABLE in 78th paragraph).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Chu discloses that wherein the block acknowledgment fed back is a basic block acknowledgment fed back or a compressed block acknowledgment fed back (Fig. 5, a value in field 520 indicates the type of block BA fed back, e.g., compressed).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Chu discloses that wherein the bitmap information is included in a Per Traffic Identification (TDI) info field of the first message frame (Fig. 9, solicited BA bitmap size 906 is included in PER TID info field 902).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chu discloses that wherein the block acknowledgment fed back is a multi-TID block acknowledgment fed back (Fig. 5, PER AID TID info 532 includes a plurality of AID TID INFO 534 for multi-TID BA fed back).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Chu discloses that wherein the first message frame further comprises: starting sequence number information bits, and each starting sequence number information bit identifies a starting frame number of a Media Access Control Service Data Unit (MSDU) or an Aggregate-MSDU (A-MSDU) corresponding to a Traffic Identification (TID) (Fig. 8, starting sequence number 804. Herein, the starting sequence number indicates the starting MSDUs).
Regarding claim 10, Chu discloses a multi-link communication method (Fig. 14), comprising:
receiving a first message frame (Fig. 4, block acknowledgment request), wherein the first message frame comprises bitmap information (Fig. 8, solicitated block acknowledgment bitmap size 806 is added to BAR information field 800 of the block acknowledgment request, illustrated in Fig. 4), the bitmap information indicates a length of a bitmap of a block acknowledgement fed back (63rd paragraph, a value carried in the solicited BA bitmap size field indicates the solicited BA bitmap size, e.g., 0 indicates 32, 1 indicates 64, 2 indicates 128, 3 indicates 256, 4 indicates 512 and so on. Herein, the value indicates the maximum number of MSDUs and/or aggregated MSDUs that can be acknowledged, see TABLE in 78th paragraph); and
performing a communication operation based on the first message (Fig. 14, block 1404, receive a block acknowledgment from the second multi-link device by the first multi-link device).
Chu discloses that the first message frame further comprises at least one traffic identification (TID) (Fig. 4, multi-TID 418 and/or TID INFO 426). Chu does not disclose that wherein the first message further comprises at least one association identifier (AID) of at least one station corresponding to each TID. Hedayat discloses that the MU BAR frame has the same structure as multi-TID BlockAck frame but with the following differences: if a multi-TID BlockAck frmae is used, the “Per-TID info” has the identification of each STA (AID) that is expected to respond (187th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TID-AID info in MU BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Hedayat, to indicate expected responses from stations in a multi-user environment.
Chu does not disclose that the bitmap information is included in a block acknowledgement request control field of the first message frame. Jang discloses that information about bitmap size is included in a control field of the block acknowledgement request frame (col. 18, lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate bitmap size in control field of BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Jang, to indicate size of the bitmap of acknowledgment.
Regarding claim 11, Chu discloses that wherein performing the communication operation based on the first message frame (Fig 14, block 1404), comprises: sending a block acknowledgement frame (Fig. 5, block acknowledgment), wherein the block acknowledgement frame comprises information about reception states of Media Access Control Service Data Units (MSDUs) or Aggregate-MSDUs (A-MSDUs) (Fig. 8, BA information 512 includes block ACK bitmap 530), and a number of the MSDUs or the A-MSDUs corresponds to the length indicated by the bitmap information (78th paragraph, block acknowledgment indicates maximum number of MSDUs and/or A-MSDUs that can be acknowledged).
Regarding claim 21, Chu discloses an electronic device (Fig. 6, originator 602), comprising a memory (103rd paragraph, computer storage medium), a processor (21st paragraph, multi-link device comprises a processor), and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor (103rd paragraph, instructions stored on a computer storage medium for execution by a computer), wherein the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is caused to:
determine a first message frame (Fig. 4, block acknowledgment request), wherein the first message frame comprises bitmap information (Fig. 8, solicitated block acknowledgment bitmap size 806 is added to BAR information field 800 of the block acknowledgment request, illustrated in Fig. 4), the bitmap information indicates a length of a bitmap of a block acknowledgement fed back (63rd paragraph, a value carried in the solicited BA bitmap size field indicates the solicited BA bitmap size, e.g., 0 indicates 32, 1 indicates 64, 2 indicates 128, 3 indicates 256, 4 indicates 512 and so on. Herein, the value indicates the maximum number of MSDUs and/or aggregated MSDUs that can be acknowledged, see TABLE in 78th paragraph); and
send the first message frame (Fig. 14, block 1402, a first multi-link device transmits a request for block ACK response to a second multi-link device, wherein, the request is a block acknowledgment request).
Chu discloses that the first message frame further comprises at least one traffic identification (TID) (Fig. 4, multi-TID 418 and/or TID INFO 426). Chu does not disclose that wherein the first message further comprises at least one association identifier (AID) of at least one station corresponding to each TID. Hedayat discloses that the MU BAR frame has the same structure as multi-TID BlockAck frame but with the following differences: if a multi-TID BlockAck frmae is used, the “Per-TID info” has the identification of each STA (AID) that is expected to respond (187th paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include TID-AID info in MU BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Hedayat, to indicate expected responses from stations in a multi-user environment.
Chu does not disclose that the bitmap information is included in a block acknowledgement request control field of the first message frame. Jang discloses that information about bitmap size is included in a control field of the block acknowledgement request frame (col. 18, lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate bitmap size in control field of BAR frame in Chu’s system, as suggested by Jang, to indicate size of the bitmap of acknowledgment.
Regarding claim 22, Chu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor (103rd paragraph, instructions stored on a computer storage medium for execution by a computer), the method of claim 1is performed (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Chu discloses an electronic device (Fig. 6, recipient 604), comprising a memory (103rd paragraph, computer storage medium), a processor (21st paragraph, multi-link device comprises a processor), and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor (103rd paragraph, instructions stored on a computer storage medium for execution by a computer), the processor is caused to perform the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 24, Chu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor (103rd paragraph, instructions stored on a computer storage medium for execution by a computer), the method of claim 10 is performed (see rejection of claim 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 14-16, 18, and 21-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights