DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/286,980 filed on 10/13/2023. The amendment presented on 6/23/2026, which cancels claims 2, 9, and 19 and amends claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, and 17, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 17-18, and 21-22 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, 11-14, 17-18, and 21-22 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, the phrase “comprises comprising” should be corrected as –comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the DTIM beacon frame" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar correction is required for claims 8 and 17.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 17-18, and 21- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koratekere Honnappa et al. (hereinafter Honnappa)(US 2017/0201940) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi)(US 2010/0315983).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Honnappa teaches as follows:
An electronic device (interpreted as the access point (AP) 105-c in figure 9), comprising a memory (memory 910 in figure 9), a processor (processor 920 in figure 9) and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor (AP 105-c may include memory 910, a processor 920, a transceiver 925, an antenna 930, and an AP wireless communication manager 905, see, ¶ [0133] and figure 9), the processor is configured to:
determining a first message frame (interpreted as the TIM information element frame (200 in figure 2) on a first link of the multiple links (TIM information elements may be transmitted by an AP 105 on beacon signals so that stations 115 served by the AP 105 can interpret such aspects as a listening interval. A listening interval may be implemented by various stations 115 in a wireless communication system. The listening interval may define protocols of a power management mode such as a sleep protocol or a wake-up configuration, see, ¶ [0059] and figure 2), wherein the first message frame comprises a first delivery traffic indication map (DTIM) period corresponding to a second link on which a DTIM beacon is to be sent and a second DTIM period corresponding to a third link on which the DTIM beacon frame is to be sent (the AP 105 may periodically broadcast a delivery traffic indication message (DTIM). DTIMs may be a form of a traffic indication message (TIM) information element (IE) transmitted over a beacon signal, see, ¶ [0054] and figure 1)(therefore, the TIM information element are broadcasted to multiple stations belonging to the access point through multiple links),
the first DTIM period and the second DTIM period being contained within a same information element of the first message frame (the DTIM period field 220 of the TIM information element frame format 200 may be a single octet that reflects the number of TIM intervals between DTIM frames, which may reflect a number of beacon transmissions between DTIM transmissions. For example, a DTIM period of 4 may indicate that a DTIM will be transmitted by an AP 105 as a portion of every fourth beacon transmission. A value of 1 may indicate that every TIM is a DTIM, which may indicate that every beacon transmission includes a DTIM, see, ¶ [0062] and figure 2); and
sending the first message frame on the first link (the AP 105 may periodically broadcast a delivery traffic indication message (DTIM). DTIMs may be a form of a traffic indication message (TIM) information element (IE) transmitted over a beacon signal, see, ¶ [0054])(a station 115 may receive an indication of a new DTIM listening interval. For example, an AP 105 may have identified a lack of broadcast and/or multicast traffic for one or more stations 115 served by the AP 105, and broadcast an indication that a longer DTIM period may be employed by the AP 105. Thus, by receiving the indication of a different DTIM period employed by an AP 105, the station 115 may interpret an indication of a new DTIM listening interval for the station 115, see, ¶ [0103] and figure 5)(DTIM period may be updated to a new value at any time suitable for stations 115 served by the AP 105 to reconfigure a listening interval, see, ¶ [0072]).
Honnappa teaches of broadcasting same DTIM period on traffic indication message (TIM) information element (IE) to all stations belonging to the same AP and dynamically updating to different DTIM period.
Honnappa does not explicitly teach transmitting different DTIM period on each different link.
Choi teaches as follows:
A method and an apparatus for reducing power consumption of a WLAN module by changing a beacon/Delivery Traffic Indication Map (DTIM) interval depending on an active/sleep state of a portable terminal (see, ¶ [0012]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Honnappa with Choi to include changing DTIM interval depending on state of each terminal as taught by Choi in order to individually specify the DTIM period for each station.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Honnappa teaches as follows:
Wherein the first message frame comprises a traffic indication map (TIM) element, and the information element is the TIM element (the AP 105 may periodically broadcast a delivery traffic indication message (DTIM). DTIMs may be a form of a traffic indication message (TIM) information element (IE) transmitted over a beacon signal, see, ¶ [0054] and figure 2).
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 21-22, Honnappa in view of Choi teaches similar limitations as presented above in the rejection for claims 1 and 17.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koratekere Honnappa et al. (hereinafter Honnappa)(US 2017/0201940) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi)(US 2010/0315983), and further in view of Jang et al. (hereinafter Jang)(US 2023/0164859).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Min teaches all limitations as presented above except for the reduced neighbor report element.
Jang teaches as follows:
The reduced neighbor report (RNR) element may include a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) information field (equivalent to applicant’s time information), and the TBTT information field may include information related to a link (equivalent to applicant’s link ID) through which the RNR element is transmitted (see, ¶ [0527] and figure 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Honnappa in view of Choi with Jang to include the reduced neighbor report (RNR) element as taught by Jang in order to efficiently establish multi-link setup.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koratekere Honnappa et al. (hereinafter Honnappa)(US 2017/0201940) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi)(US 2010/0315983), and further in view of Cariou et al. (hereinafter Cariou)(US 2021/0185607).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Honnappa in view of Choi teaches all limitations as presented above except for the listen interval of a multi-link device level.
Cariou teaches as follows:
The AP indicates the Beacon interval (equivalent to applicant’s first message frame) in the Beacon frame in f time units (TU), which is 1024 μs. When the AP decides the Beacon interval, the STA indicates what the listen interval is in the association request frame (equivalent to applicant’s second message frame) to indicate how often the STA wakes up to receive the Beacon frame when the STA is in the power save mode (see, ¶ [0049]); and
it is desirable to introduce an Multi-link device (MLD) parameter indication to decide if the indication is for an MLD level (one value for a peer MLD) or per link level (different values for different APs). For example, if different Beacon intervals exist for several APs, then the listen interval indication from a non-AP MLD will have different values from the listen interval in each link, rather than having only one value (see, ¶ [0033])(teaches limitations of applying same listen interval for all links).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Honnappa in view of Choi with Cariou to include transmitting an association request frame including the listen interval for the multi-link device level as taught by Cariou in order to efficiently indicate how often the STA wakes up.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koratekere Honnappa et al. (hereinafter Honnappa)(US 2017/0201940) in view of Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi)(US 2010/0315983), and further in view of Min et al. (hereinafter Min)(US 2021/0051513)
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Honnappa in view of Choi teaches all limitations as presented above except for determining a link for transmission.
Min teaches as follows:
Determining a link for transmitting downlink cache data (one of the advantages of multi-link communication is the flexibility in utilizing multiple available links, and multi-link APs dynamically may allocate links for downlink/uplink transmission. For example, in case the AP 204 decides to switch its operating link for downlink transmission from the first link 214 to the second link 216 for dynamic load balancing, latency reduction, etc., see, ¶ [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Honnappa in view of Choi with Min to include dynamically allocating a link for downlink transmission as taught by Min in order to efficiently utilize multiple available links.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 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, Rebecca E Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights