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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,2,11, and 12 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210212118) in view of Chu (US 20220150958).
Re claim 1:
Lu discloses a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising: stations (STAs) each comprising a transceiver configured to form a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD (Fig.10); and
a processor operably coupled to the STAs, the processor configured to (Fig. 14):
detect a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pairs (Para.[0050] In the example shown in FIG. 10, STA1 and STA2 start enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) backoff procedures on the primary link and the secondary link separately. When a backoff timer of STA1 (e.g., random backoff (RBO)) counts down to zero first on the primary link, STA1 may obtain a TXOP and transmit frame(s) over the primary link. In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero);
detect an attempt by a first STA of the NSTR link pairs to synchronize start times of physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) with a second STA of the NSTR link pairs (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link);
determine a backoff hold time duration (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link – Examiner Note the determined duration is from when the STA1 timer reaches zero to when the STA2 timer reaches zero); and
determine a (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link),
wherein the first STA is configured to hold a backoff counter at a value of zero during a backoff hold time duration (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link).
As shown above, Lu discloses determining a backoff hold time duration. Lu does not explicitly disclose the units used and thus does not disclose a number of time intervals.
Chu discloses a number of time intervals (Para.[0048] As described herein, a “backoff counter” may feature a slot-based backoff counter which counts down from a Contention Window (CW) of an AC (CW[AC]) to zero via values from slot boundaries or time slots).
Lu and Chu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to include backoff count ins intervals of time slots as taught by Chu in order to perform multi-link operations more efficiently (Chu Para.[0050]).
Re claim 5:
Lu discloses the non-AP MLD of Claim 1, wherein to determine the backoff hold time duration, the processor is configured to determine TOL1 and TOL2, wherein: TOL1is a duration when the backoff counter of the first STA reaches zero, TOL2 is a duration when a backoff counter of the second STA reaches zero, TOL2> TOL1, and the backoff hold time = TOL2- TOL1 (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link – Examiner Note the determined duration is from when the STA1 timer reaches zero to when the STA2 timer reaches zero).
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 20210212118) in view of Chu (US 20220150958) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 20240340975) and Lu2 (US 20240373465).
Re claim 2:
As discussed above, Lu in view of Chu meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the non-AP MLD of Claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to detect initiation of a medium synchronization loss recovery procedure, and the transceiver is further configured to: transmit information associated with timing to the AP, the information associated with timing configured to aid the AP in making a scheduling decision, and receive data associated with the information associated with timing from the AP.
Hwang discloses the non-AP MLD of Claim 1, wherein: the processor is further configured to detect initiation of a medium synchronization loss recovery procedure, and the transceiver is further configured to: transmit information associated with timing to the AP, the information associated with timing configured to aid the AP in making a scheduling decision (Para.[0155] The AAR control field may be included in an A-Control field included in the MAC header of the data frame. The AAR control field may be an indicator for requesting assistance of the AP MLD when a data frame cannot be transmitted due to the mute period. The AAR control field may include an AC of the data frame for which the assistance of the AP MLD is required, the length of the data frame, and/or a link indicator. Here, the link indicator may indicate the link 2 and Para.[0156] When transmitting the data frame including the AAR control field, the STA 1 of the STA MLD may configure a TXOP in the link 1 so that the AP MLD (e.g., AP 1) can transmit a reception response frame and a trigger frame for the data frame and Para.[0157] For example, the AP MLD may determine that assistance for the transmission operation in the link 2 is required based on the information element(s) included in the AAR control field. In this case, the AP 1 may transmit a trigger frame to assist the transmission operation of the STA MLD (e.g., STA 2)).
Lu and Hwang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to include AAR as taught by Hwang to improve transmission efficiency (Hwang Para.[0028]).
Lu in view of Chu and Hwang does not explicitly disclose by indicating to the AP a time limit within which the STA needs to be served.
Lu2 discloses by indicating to the AP a time limit within which the STA needs to be served (Fig. 4 ref. AAR Response Timeout and Para.[0101] The AAR Response Timeout subfield indicates the response timeout value for the transmission of the Trigger frame by the assisting APs affiliated with an AP MLD as a response to a frame with an AAR Control subfield (i.e., the AP assistance request information) after an AP affiliated with the AP MLD receives the frame with the AAR Control subfield).
Lu and Lu2 are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to include AAR that indicates a time limit as taught by Lu2 to resolve synchronization problems (Lu2 Para.[0005]).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Lu in view of Chu meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the non-AP MLD of Claim 2, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the information associated with timing in an AP-assisted medium synchronization recovery (AAR) control subfield.
Hwang discloses the non-AP MLD of Claim 2, wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the information associated with timing in an AP-assisted medium synchronization recovery (AAR) control subfield (Para.[0155] The AAR control field may be included in an A-Control field included in the MAC header of the data frame. The AAR control field may be an indicator for requesting assistance of the AP MLD when a data frame cannot be transmitted due to the mute period. The AAR control field may include an AC of the data frame for which the assistance of the AP MLD is required, the length of the data frame, and/or a link indicator. Here, the link indicator may indicate the link 2 and Para.[0156] When transmitting the data frame including the AAR control field, the STA 1 of the STA MLD may configure a TXOP in the link 1 so that the AP MLD (e.g., AP 1) can transmit a reception response frame and a trigger frame for the data frame and Para.[0157] For example, the AP MLD may determine that assistance for the transmission operation in the link 2 is required based on the information element(s) included in the AAR control field. In this case, the AP 1 may transmit a trigger frame to assist the transmission operation of the STA MLD (e.g., STA 2)).
Lu and Hwang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to include AAR as taught by Hwang to improve transmission efficiency (Hwang Para.[0028]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Lu in view of Chu meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the non-AP MLD of Claim 2, wherein the information associated with timing comprises measurement information associated with delay constraints on frames that the first STA intends to transmit to the AP.
Hwang discloses the non-AP MLD of Claim 2, wherein the information associated with timing comprises measurement information associated with delay constraints on frames that the first STA intends to transmit to the AP (Para.[0155] The AAR control field may include an AC of the data frame for which the assistance of the AP MLD is required, the length of the data frame, and/or a link indicator. Here, the link indicator may indicate the link 2 and Para.[0159] In this case, in order to match transmission end time points of the frames in the link 1 and the link 2, the AP MLD (e.g., AP 2) may add padding to the trigger frame of the link 2).
Lu and Hwang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu to include AAR as taught by Hwang to improve transmission efficiency (Hwang Para.[0028]).
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends Lu does not disclose determine the backoff hold time duration. Applicant’s rationale is Lu does not disclose how STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link.
The Examiner respectfully. Lu discloses determine a backoff hold time duration (Para.[0050] In an event that STA1 checks the channel status of STA2, if the backoff timer of STA2 (e.g., RBO) is not zero, STA1 may keep its backoff timer zero and wait for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero on the secondary link). The backoff hold time duration is determined by checking the channel status of STA2 and waiting for the backoff timer of STA2 to count down to zero. The claim does define how the backoff hold time duration is determined nor what the duration is. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosure of Lu reads on the limitation as claimed.
The Examiner recommends further defining the determine step to show a calculation as argued by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471