DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 02/02/2024, in which claims 1-9 and 12-21 are pending and ready for examination.
Claims 10-11 have been cancelled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency of claim 7 is not clear. For examining purpose, the examiner assumes claim 7 depends on claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by CHU et al. (hereinafter, “CHU”; 20210211871).
In response to claims 1 and 13,
CHU teaches a communication method, comprising: determining a first message frame in one of multi-links, and sending the first message frame (paragraph 46, a single frame is equated to a first message, paragraph 47,using multiple links is read as using one of multi-link, paragraph 69, establishing a TDLS for two non-APs for communication is read as determining a first message frame and sending the first message frame); or
receiving the first message frame in one of the multi-links (paragraph 46, a single frame is equated to a first message, paragraph 69, establishing a TDLS for two non-APs for communication is read as determining a first message frame and sending the first message frame),
wherein the first message frame comprises support capability information indicating a support capability for a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) peer power save mode in the multi-links (paragraph 71, using a TDLS establish process for a single frame exchange explicitly teaches using a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) peer power save mode in the multi-links, paragraph 75, power saving mode (PSM) parameters of the links are equated to capability information, using a multi-link power saving mode (PSM) service period negotiation is interpreted as using peer power save mode in the multi-links), and
wherein the multi-links can support TDLS communication (paragraph 76, using PSM link for multiple links TDLS between non-AP MLD explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 12,
CHU teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory, one or more processors (paragraph 44, non-AP is equated to an electronic device, controller is equated to a processor, paragraph 86 teaches using a memory), and
a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the one or more processors, the computer program when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to collectively (paragraph 44 and 86 together teach this limitation):
determine a first message frame in one of multi-links, and send the first message frame; or receive the first message frame in one of the multi-links, wherein the first message frame comprises support capability information indicating a support capability for a tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) peer power save mode in the multi-links, and wherein the multi-links can support TDLS communication (these limitations are identical to claim 1, therefore, these limitations are rejected as claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 14-21 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.
As for dependent claims 2 and 14, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein it is identified that a the TDLS peer power save mode is supported in the multi-links, in response to an activate primitive of the TDLS peer power save mode being set to a first specific value and the support capability information being set to a second specific value.”
The closest reasonable prior art in the record CHU et al. (20210211871) teaches in paragraph 46 about using a single frame for communication, he teaches in paragraph 47 about using multiple links for communication and he teaches in paragraph 69 about establishing a TDLS for two non-APs for communication, but he fails to teach the cited limitation.
As for dependent claims 3 and 15, these claims are objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “acquiring a second message frame in one of the multi-links, wherein the second message frame comprises periodic wakeup information corresponding to at least one of the multi-links.”
The closest reasonable prior art in the record CHU et al. (20210211871) teaches in paragraph 46 about using a single frame for communication, he teaches in paragraph 47 about using multiple links for communication and he teaches in paragraph 69 about establishing a TDLS for two non-APs for communication, but he fails to teach the cited limitation.
Claims 4-9 and 16-21 are objected because these claims depend on claims 4 and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
2020271995……………….paragraphs 74-83.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights