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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3-24-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-19-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits: “Although Chu teaches multi-link TWT operation and contemplates that a TWT Teardown transmitted on one link can terminate a TWT flow across links, Chu describes teardown at the level of a flow and, where link scope is discussed, it is in connection with TWT Setup/Information elements indicating multi-link applicability via a link bitmap. The language of Claim 1, however, requires a "first message" that itself both identifies at least one of the links and indicates that TWT teardown is to be performed for the identified links. Chu does not disclose a teardown message that carries per-message link selection. Rather, the TWT Flow identifier in Chu identifies a TWT agreement or flow, not specific links. Further, the link bitmap in Chu is tied to setup/information signaling rather than the teardown frame content. As such, Chu does not teach a "first message" that identifies at least one link that includes a second link subject to teardown different from the first link which the first message was transmitted on.”
The examiner’s position is that the examiner agrees with the initial part of the claim interpretation in the remarks, which states: “claim 1…requires a "first message" that itself both identifies at least one of the links and indicates that TWT teardown is to be performed for the identified links”; however, “a teardown message that carries per-message link selection” is not a claimed limitation, but an interpretation of the initial part. The examiner invites the applicant to include the argued interpretations in the claims for proper consideration.
Also, the argument states that Chu’s TWT Flow identifier identifies a TWT agreement or flow, not specific links; the examiner respectfully disagree with the conclusion. Chu discloses in col. 7, lines 17-21: “a TWT Flow Identifier of all indicated links through a TWT Information frame in one link”. Thereby, reading in the argued claim limitations, if applicant’s message is different the examiner invites the applicant to include the argued interpretations in the claims for proper consideration.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu 12,114,259.
As to claim 1, Chu discloses a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) [NON-AP MLD] comprising: stations (STAs) each comprising a transceiver configured to form a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD (see col. 5, lines 12-35), wherein at least one target wake time (TWT) schedule or agreement is established on at least one of the links; and a processor [26] operably coupled to the STAs, the processor configured to generate or interpret a first message that identifies at least one of the links and indicates that TWT teardown is to be performed for the identified at least one link, wherein the transceiver of a first of the STAs is further configured to transmit or receive the first message to or from the AP MLD over a first of the links, wherein the identified at least one link includes a second link different from the first link, and wherein the first message is transmitted on the first link to perform TWT teardown for the at least one TWT schedule or agreement established on the second link. (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 21).
As to claim 2, Chu discloses the non-AP MLD of claim 1, wherein the identified at least one link includes at least one link other than the first link (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10).
As to claim 3, Chu discloses the non-AP MLD of claim 1, wherein: the first message includes a bitmap that has entries corresponding to link identifiers for each of the links, and the processor is further configured to: set the entries of the bitmap during generation of the first message to identify the at least one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed; or interpret the entries of the bitmap after reception of the first message to identify the at least one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10).
As to claim 7, Chu discloses the non-AP MLD of claim 1, wherein the first message is a TWT Teardown frame that includes a TWT Flow field that identifies the at least one link (see col. 7, lines 17-24).
As to claim 8, Chu discloses an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) [AP MLD] (see col. 5, lines 10-12), comprising: APs each comprising a transceiver configured to form a link with a corresponding station (STA) of a non-AP MLD (see col. 4, line , wherein at least one target wake time (TWT) schedule or agreement is established on at least one of the links; and a processor [15] operably coupled to the APs, the processor configured to generate or interpret a first message that identifies at least one of the links and indicates that TWT teardown is to be performed for the identified at least one link, wherein the transceiver of a first of the APs is further configured to transmit or receive the first message to or from the non-AP MLD over a first of the links, wherein the transceiver of a first of the STAs is further configured to transmit or receive the first message to or from the AP MLD over a first of the links, wherein the identified at least one link includes a second link different from the first link, and wherein the first message is transmitted on the first link to perform TWT teardown for the at least one TWT schedule or agreement established on the second link. (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 21).
As to claim 9, Chu discloses the AP MLD of claim 8, wherein the identified at least one link includes at least one link other than the first link (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10).
As to claim 10, Chu discloses the AP MLD of claim 8, wherein: the first message includes a bitmap that has entries corresponding to link identifiers for each of the links, and the processor is further configured to:set the entries of the bitmap during generation of the first message to identify the at least one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed; or interpret the entries of the bitmap after reception of the first message to identify the at least one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10).
As to claim 14, Chu discloses the AP MLD of claim 8, wherein the first message is a TWT Teardown frame that includes a TWT Flow field that identifies the at least one link (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10).
Regarding claims 15-17, they are the corresponding method claims of non-AP MLD claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Kwon 20210144637.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Chu discloses wherein: the first message includes a link identifier, and the processor is further configured to: set the link identifier during generation of the first message to identify one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed; or interpret the link identifier after reception of the first message to identify the one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10). Chu fails to disclose a link identifier subfield. In an analogous art Kwon discloses a link identifier subfield during generation of the first message to identify one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed; or interpret the link identifier subfield after reception of the first message to identify the one link for which the TWT teardown is to be performed (see par. 0009,0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a link identifier subfield for the simple purpose of identifying the correct link to maintain the communication.
As to claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20, Chu discloses wherein the first message includes an indication that at least one type of TWT schedule or agreement (see col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10). Chu fails to disclose excluding from the TWT teardown on the identified at least one link. In an analogous art, Kwon discloses a message includes an indication that at least one type of TWT schedule or agreement is included or excluded from the TWT teardown on the identified at least one link, wherein the indication that at least one type of TWT schedule or agreement is excluded from the TWT teardown is an indication that restricted TWT schedules are excluded from the TWT teardown (see par. 0023, 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include the undesired/unused link for teardown or exclude the desired/used link for the simple purpose of managing the wireless resources in the most effective way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights