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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 3, 6-9, 12, 15-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites ‘…which was assumed to be not in a queue of the first device has occurred is identified…’ This is unclear. It is unclear what ‘assumed to be not in a queue’ actually is referring to. Please review all of your claims for grammar and provide clarification.
Regarding claims 6-9, claim 6 recites ‘…performing, by the processor, a second backoff for a second data unit on the first link; and in response that the first backoff and the second backoff are completed on the first link, determining, by the processor, that one backoff among the first backoff and the second backoff is successful, based on a preconfigured criterion…’ These limitations are unclear. That is, it is unclear what is the difference between completed and successful. Successful in what way? What is successful to one person is unsuccessful to another. There is no clear way to determine the metes and bounds of the term successful in context of this claim and in contrast to ‘completed’. Claims 7-9 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 6; have similar issues with what ‘success’ means; and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites ‘…which was assumed to be not in a queue of the first device has occurred is identified…’ This is unclear. It is unclear what ‘assumed to be not in a queue’ actually is referring to. Please review all of your claims for grammar and provide clarification.
Regarding claims 15-18, claim 15 recites ‘…perform a second backoff for a second data unit on the first link; and in response that the first backoff and the second backoff are completed on the first link, determine that one backoff among the first backoff and the second backoff is successful, based on a preconfigured criterion…’ These limitations are unclear. That is, it is unclear what is the difference between completed and successful. Successful in what way? What is successful to one person is unsuccessful to another. There is no clear way to determine the metes and bounds of the term successful in context of this claim and in contrast to ‘completed’. Claims 16-18 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 7; have similar issues with what ‘success’ means; and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method of a first device, the method comprising: (See Jang slide 7-8; Non-AP MLD (non-STR) (e.g. a first device))
Performing a first backoff for a first data unit on a first link; (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0?, backoff counter, (e.g. performing a first backoff) on Link 2 (e.g. a first link); STA2 does not immediately send the RTS and/or DATA (e.g. first data unit) on Link2)
after completing the first backoff on the first link, (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0 (e.g. backoff completed when BC=0)) identifying that communication of a second device which is a recipient of the first data unit is performed on a second link; and (See Jang slide 7-8; device receiving the RTS/DATA (e.g. second device); AP1 and AP2 (e.g. second device); Data is being transmitted on Link 1 (e.g. second link))
in response that the communication of the second device on the second link is completed, initiating a first transmission procedure of the first data unit on the first link. (See Jang slide 7-8, option 2-2; after STA 1 is done with sending on Link 1(e.g. second link)) and the BA, block ACK, has been communicated, RTS (e.g. first data) is sent on Link 2 (e.g. first link) to AP2 (e.g. second device))
Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the devices have processors. However, Jang’018 does disclose wherein the devices have processors. (See Jang’018; fig. 1; processors executing an algorithm stored in memory) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang to include the teaching of wherein the devices have processors of Jang’018 with the motivation being it is common sense (that is, in order for devices in the art of communication systems to operate at a minimum they need a processor and memory) and further to allow for execution of code that may be modified to updated for security reasons and further to allow for wide device capability access and use of the code.
Regarding claim 2, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, when the communication of the second device which is the recipient of the first data unit is performed on the second link after completing the first backoff on the first link, the counter value of the first backoff is maintained at 0. (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0; holding (e.g. maintained))
Regarding claim 3, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission procedure on the first link is initiated when an event indicating that a data related to the first data unit which was assumed to be not in a queue of the first device has occurred is identified. (See Jang slide 7-8, option 2-2; after STA 1 is done with sending on Link 1(e.g. second link)) and the BA, block ACK, has been communicated, RTS (e.g. first data) is sent on Link 2 (e.g. first link) to AP2 (e.g. second device); channel is free and TXOP is over after BA (e.g. it is assumed that that data has been sent and therefore is ‘assumed’ to not be in the queue anymore)
Regarding claim 4, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first transmission procedure on the first link is initiated when an event indicating that a second data unit to be transmitted to a third device has occurred is identified. (See Jang’018 fig. 27; DL to other STAs (e.g. second data units transmitted to third device has occurred) and STA waits until channel is clear to send next data) The motivation being to prevent collisions on a shared wireless medium which saves bandwidth and increases goodput and further to ensure the best chance of sending/receiving data by ensuring the channel is as clear as possible before attempting to send data.
Regarding claim 6, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
performing, by the processor, a second backoff for a second data unit on the first link; and
in response that the first backoff and the second backoff are completed on the first link, determining, by the processor, that one backoff among the first backoff and the second backoff is successful, based on a preconfigured criterion. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet (unsuccessful); so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit) (so 2nd is successful); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Regarding claim 7, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 6, further including: in response that the one backoff is the first backoff, initiating, by the processor, a second transmission procedure of the second data unit after completion of the first transmission procedure. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet; success is not transmitting when channel is busy; so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit)); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Regarding claim 8, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 6, wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a completion order of backoff, the one backoff completed first among the first backoff and the second backoff is determined to be successful. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet; success is not transmitting when channel is busy; so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit)); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018) and further in view of Patil (2021/0160941) and further in view of Fischer (2021/0195540).
Regarding claim 5, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 1. Jang discloses one non-STR MLD. Jang does not explicitly disclose multiple non-STR MLDs. However, Patil does disclose multiple non-STR MLDs. (See Patil para. 50; non-STR MLDs (plural)) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 to include the teaching of multiple non-STR MLDs of Patil with the motivation being to increase connectivity beyond just one device and further to allow for different network types and applications to meet end user network goals and further to save money (as opposed to only having one MLD per network).
Jang in view of Jang’018 in view of Patil does not explicitly disclose wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network. However, Fischer does disclose wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network. (See Fischer para. 53) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 in view of Patil to include the teaching of wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network of Fischer with the motivation being to increase network coverage and further to allow for different network types and applications to meet end user network goals and further to save money (by not requiring more APs) and further to allow for coverage it difficult network locations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018) and further in view of Ho (2010/0195664).
Regarding claim 9, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the method of claim 6. Jang in view of Jang’018 does not explicitly disclose wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority. However, Ho discloses wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority. (See Ho para. 24; table 1) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 to include the teaching of wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority of Ho with the motivation being to efficiently utilize limited network resources by categorizing traffic to give higher delay to traffic that is less sensitive to delay and jitter and lower delay to more important traffic and further to ensure smooth playback of video and voice traffic and further to allow for tiered pricing and further to meet end user goals associated with traffic and costs.
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 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses a first device comprising: (See Jang slide 7-8; Non-AP MLD (non-STR) (e.g. a first device))
perform a first backoff for a first data unit on a first link; (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0?, backoff counter, (e.g. performing a first backoff) on Link 2 (e.g. a first link); STA2 does not immediately send the RTS and/or DATA (e.g. first data unit) on Link2)
after completing the first backoff on the first link, (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0 (e.g. backoff completed when BC=0)) identify that communication of a second device which is a recipient of the first data unit is performed on a second link; and (See Jang slide 7-8; device receiving the RTS/DATA (e.g. second device); AP1 and AP2 (e.g. second device); Data is being transmitted on Link 1 (e.g. second link))
in response that the communication of the second device on the second link is completed, initiate a first transmission procedure of the first data unit on the first link. (See Jang slide 7-8, option 2-2; after STA 1 is done with sending on Link 1(e.g. second link)) and the BA, block ACK, has been communicated, RTS (e.g. first data) is sent on Link 2 (e.g. first link) to AP2 (e.g. second device))
Jang does not explicitly disclose at least one processor and memory configured for storing one or more instructions executable by the at least one processor. However, Jang’018 does disclose at least one processor and memory configured for storing one or more instructions executable by the at least one processor. (See Jang’018; fig. 1; processors executing an algorithm stored in memory) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang to include the teaching of at least one processor and memory configured for storing one or more instructions executable by the at least one processor of Jang’018 with the motivation being it is common sense (that is, in order for devices in the art of communication systems to operate at a minimum they need a processor and memory) and further to allow for execution of code that may be modified to updated for security reasons and further to allow for wide device capability access and use of the code and further to allow for updates to improve performance or deliver new features.
Regarding claim 11, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 10, wherein, when the communication of the second device which is the recipient of the first data unit is performed on the second link after completing the first backoff on the first link, the counter value of the first backoff is maintained at 0. (See Jang slide 7-8; BC=0; holding (e.g. maintained))
Regarding claim 12, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 10, wherein the first transmission procedure on the first link is initiated when an event indicating that a data related to the first data unit which was assumed to be not in a queue of the first device has occurred is identified. (See Jang slide 7-8, option 2-2; after STA 1 is done with sending on Link 1(e.g. second link)) and the BA, block ACK, has been communicated, RTS (e.g. first data) is sent on Link 2 (e.g. first link) to AP2 (e.g. second device); channel is free and TXOP is over after BA (e.g. it is assumed that that data has been sent and therefore is ‘assumed’ to not be in the queue anymore)
Regarding claim 13, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 10, wherein the first transmission procedure on the first link is initiated when an event indicating that a second data unit to be transmitted to a third device has occurred is identified. (See Jang’018 fig. 27; DL to other STAs (e.g. second data units transmitted to third device has occurred) and STA waits until channel is clear to send next data) The motivation being to prevent collisions on a shared wireless medium which saves bandwidth and increases goodput and further to ensure the best chance of sending/receiving data by ensuring the channel is as clear as possible before attempting to send data.
Regarding claim 15, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 10, wherein the one or more instructions are further executed to:
perform a second backoff for a second data unit on the first link; and
in response that the first backoff and the second backoff are completed on the first link, determine that one backoff among the first backoff and the second backoff is successful, based on a preconfigured criterion. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet (unsuccessful); so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit) (so 2nd is successful); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Regarding claim 16, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions are further executed to perform: in response that the one backoff is the first backoff, initiating a second transmission procedure of the second data unit after completion of the first transmission procedure. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet; success is not transmitting when channel is busy; so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit)); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Regarding claim 17, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 15, wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a completion order of backoff, the one backoff completed first among the first backoff and the second backoff is determined to be successful. (See Jang slides 7-8; BC=0 (first backoff completed) but can’t transmit yet; success is not transmitting when channel is busy; so re-pick BC (e.g. second backoff) after 2nd completed transmit data (e.g. second data unit)); first data unit is RTS; see also 112 above)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018) and further in view of Patil (2021/0160941) and further in view of Fischer (2021/0195540).
Regarding claim 14, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 10. Jang discloses one non-STR MLD. Jang does not explicitly disclose multiple non-STR MLDs. However, Patil does disclose multiple non-STR MLDs. (See Patil para. 50; non-STR MLDs (plural)) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 to include the teaching of multiple non-STR MLDs of Patil with the motivation being to increase connectivity beyond just one device and further to allow for different network types and applications to meet end user network goals and further to save money (as opposed to only having one MLD per network).
Jang in view of Jang’018 in view of Patil does not explicitly disclose wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network. However, Fischer does disclose wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network. (See Fischer para. 53) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 in view of Patil to include the teaching of wherein the network devices could be configured as an adhoc network of Fischer with the motivation being to increase network coverage and further to allow for different network types and applications to meet end user network goals and further to save money (by not requiring more APs) and further to allow for coverage it difficult network locations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (“Non-AP MLD Initiated Aggregation: Opportunity in TXOP” IEEE 802.11-20/0739r1; LG Electronics;13 July 2020), and further in view of Jang’018 (2022/0418018) and further in view of Ho (2010/0195664).
Regarding claim 18, Jang in view of Jang’018 discloses the first device of claim 15. Jang in view of Jang’018 does not explicitly disclose wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority. However, Ho discloses wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority. (See Ho para. 24; table 1) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jang in view of Jang’018 to include the teaching of wherein when the preconfigured criterion is a priority of an access category (AC), the one backoff associated with an AC including a highest priority of Ho with the motivation being to efficiently utilize limited network resources by categorizing traffic to give higher delay to traffic that is less sensitive to delay and jitter and lower delay to more important traffic and further to ensure smooth playback of video and voice traffic and further to allow for tiered pricing and further to meet end user goals associated with traffic and costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461