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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/KR2022/006982 filed 5-16-22, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0063436 filed 5-17-21.
Information Disclosure Statement
These information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11-10-23 & 4-25-25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11-10-23. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 14 & 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9 & 14 of copending Application No. 18/385,658 (US 2024/0064810 A1 to Kim-810) in view of Kim-831 (US 2023/0164831 A1) and Song (US 2022/0312521 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection as following:
Regarding Claim 1.
Kim (US 2024/0064810 A1) discloses a method of a first device, the method comprising:
performing, by a processor, a first backoff operation for a first data frame on a first link {Kim-810: claim 1, lines 2-3};
performing, by the processor, a second backoff operation for a second data frame on a second link {Kim-810: claim 1, lines 4-5};
in response that the first backoff operation is completed, transmitting, by a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device, the first data frame including one or more data units on the first link {Kim-810: claim 1, lines 6-8};
in response that the second backoff operation is completed, transmitting, by a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device, the second data frame including one or more data units on the second link {Kim-810: claim 1, lines 9-18 & claim 4, lines 1-4}; and
Kim-810 does not explicitly disclose a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device, a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device, and receiving a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame, wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’.
However, in the same field of endeavor,
Kim-831 (US 2023/0164831 A1) discloses a first station (STA) affiliated with the second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27} a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Kim-831’s teaching to Kim-810’s system with the motivation being to provide that “parameters can be updated quickly, and the transmission efficiency can be improved”{Kim-831: ¶0024}.
Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) disclose receiving, by the processor, a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame, wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’ {Song: Figs.21-23, 25, 27, 31 & 33 and ¶0222-wherein “when the receiving STA successfully receives data 1 in band A and data 2 in band B, and when BA frames (i.e., ACK1, ACK2, ¶0215) for data 1 and data 2 transmitted by the receiving STA…the transmitting STA (i.e., AP) can receive BA frames for data 1 and data 2 through band A, the transmitting STA may obtain information that data1 and data2 have been successfully received.” In other words, the claimed ML BA is the BA frame transmitted from the receiving STA when the receiving STA successfully received data1 in band A and data2 in band B, thus, the BA frame based on the acknowledgment policy (Fig.23) for successfully received data 1 and data 2 (e.g. BA frames comprise ACK1+ACK2), which is “other than ‘no acknowledgment’ as claimed, emphasis added}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Song’s teaching to Kim-810’s system with the motivation being “to increase robustness and reliability of transmission and to obtain the effect of successfully acquiring ACK/NACK information of a previously transmitted data frame”{Song: ¶0219}.
Regarding Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data frame is an Extreme High Throughput (EHT) frame, and the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame. {Song: ¶0003 wherein “The present specification proposes a technical feature that can be utilized in a new communication standard. For example, the new communication standard may be an extreme high throughput (EHT) standard which is currently being discussed. The EHT standard may use an increased bandwidth, an enhanced PHY layer protocol data unit (PPDU) structure, an enhanced sequence, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) scheme, or the like, which is newly proposed. The EHT standard may be called the IEEE 802.11be standard.”}
Regarding Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “data 3 of FIG. 31 may include data 1, data 2, and information related to an ACK request for data 3”}, and the one or more conditions include: a condition in which a recipient of the first data frame and a recipient of the second data frame are same[,]; a condition in which the recipient is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) device; a condition in which backoff operations are performed for access categories (ACs) of data frames transmitted to the recipient; and a condition in which a transmission end time of the first data frame is before a transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “data 3 of FIG. 31 may include data 1, data 2, and information related to an ACK request for data 3”}, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is less than a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is before the transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “data 3 of FIG. 31 may include data 1, data 2, and information related to an ACK request for data 3”}, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is greater than or equal to a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is after the transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA3 is after the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 14.
-Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 and further as following:
A first device {Kim-810: claim 9, line 1} comprising:
a processor {Kim-810: claim 9, line 2}; and
a memory {Kim: claim 9, lines 3-6} storing one or more instructions executable by the processor, wherein the one or more instructions are executed to perform:
performing a first backoff operation for a first data frame on a first link {Kim-810: claim 9, lines 7-8};
performing a second backoff operation for a second data frame on a second link {Kim-810: claim 9, lines 9-10};
in response that the first backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27}, the first data frame including one or more data units on the first link {Kim-810: claim 9, lines 11-13};
in response that the second backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27}, the second data frame including one or more data units on the second link {Kim-810: claim 9, lines 14-22 & claim 12, lines 1-4}; and
receiving, from the first STA, a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame {Song: Figs.21-33 & ¶0219-wherein “a response signal (i.e., a BA frame) including two or more BAs may be transmitted”}, wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’.
Regarding Claim 18. The first device of claim 14, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include:
a condition in which a recipient of the first data frame and a recipient of the second data frame are same[,]; a condition in which the recipient is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) device; a condition in which backoff operations are performed for access categories (ACs) of data frames transmitted to the recipient; and a condition in which a transmission end time of the first data frame is before a transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 6 & 14.
Regarding Claim 19. The first device of claim 14, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is less than a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is before the transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 14.
Regarding Claim 20. The first device of claim 14, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is greater than or equal to a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is after the transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 8 & 14.
Claims 2 & 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9 & 14 of copending Application No. 18/385,658 (US 2024/0064810 A1 to Kim-810) in view of Kim-831 (US 2023/0164831 A1) & Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) and further in view of Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection as following:
Regarding Claim 2. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 1, Kim-831 does not explicitly disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1) disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame {Kim-721: ¶0302 wherein “when the user data is shared in the multilink/band of the STA, it is possible to transmit user data (or user data having the same Priority/QoS) having the same TID (Traffic ID) through different links/bands”}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Kim-721’s teaching to Kim-810’s system with the motivation being “for transmitting and receiving various control information to support an operation of a station in a WLAN system supporting multiple links.”{Kim-721: ¶0001}
Regarding Claim 15. The first device of claim 14, wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
-Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 2 & 14.
Claims 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/915,944 (US 2023/0164831 A1 to Kim-831) in view of Song (US 2022/0312521 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection as following:
Regarding Claim 9.
A method of a second device, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first station (STA) affiliated with the second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27}, a first data frame on a first link {Kim-831 (US 2023/0164831 A1): claim 20, lines 4-7};
receiving, by a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device {Kim-831: claims 13, 21, 27}, a second data frame on a second link {Kim-831 (US 2023/0164831 A1): claim 20, lines 10-11};
Kim-831 does not explicitly disclose generating a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame; and
transmitting, by the first STA, the ML BA frame on the second link,
wherein the ML BA frame is transmitted based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) disclose generating a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame; and transmitting, by the first STA, the ML BA frame on the second link, wherein the ML BA frame is transmitted based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’ {Song: Figs.21-23, 25, 27, 31 & 33 and ¶0222-wherein “when the receiving STA successfully receives data 1 in band A and data 2 in band B, and when BA frames (i.e., ACK1, ACK2, ¶0215) for data 1 and data 2 transmitted by the receiving STA…the transmitting STA (i.e., AP) can receive BA frames for data 1 and data 2 through band A, the transmitting STA may obtain information that data1 and data2 have been successfully received.” In other words, the claimed ML BA is the BA frame transmitted from the receiving STA when the receiving STA successfully received data1 in band A and data2 in band B, thus, the BA frame based on the acknowledgment policy (Fig.23) for successfully received data 1 and data 2 (e.g. BA frames comprise ACK1+ACK2), which is “other than ‘no acknowledgment’ as claimed, emphasis added}.. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Song’s teaching to Kim-831’s system with the motivation being “to increase robustness and reliability of transmission and to obtain the effect of successfully acquiring ACK/NACK information of a previously transmitted data frame”{Song: ¶0219}.
Regarding Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein when a reception end time of the first data frame is before a reception end time of the second data frame, transmission of the first reception status information is delayed after reception of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-33 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2, STA transmitting ACK1+ACK2+ACK3 to AP after reception of DATA2; In other words, the transmission of the DATA1 status information is delayed after reception of the DATA2, emphasis added}.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 17/915,944 (US 2023/0164831 A1 to Kim-831) in view of Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) and Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection as following:
Regarding Claim 11. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 9, Kim-831 does not explicitly disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1) disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame {Kim-721: ¶0302 wherein “when the user data is shared in the multilink/band of the STA, it is possible to transmit user data (or user data having the same Priority/QoS) having the same TID (Traffic ID) through different links/bands”}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Kim-721’s teaching to Kim-831’s system with the motivation being “for transmitting and receiving various control information to support an operation of a station in a WLAN system supporting multiple links.”{Kim-721: ¶0001}
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, 3, 6-10, 14 & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) in view of Shafin (US 2023/0023779 A1).
Regarding Claim 9.
Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) discloses a method of a second device {Song: STA-Fig.31}, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first station (STA) {Song: AP-Fig.31} affiliated with the second device, a first data frame on a first link {Song: STA receiving DATA1 from AP on band B (the claimed first link)};
receiving, by a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device, a second data frame on a second link {Song: STA receiving DATA2 from AP on band A (the claimed second link)};
generating a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame {Song: STA generating ACK1+ACK2+ACK3 for acknowledged the reception status of DATA1, DATA2 & DATA3 from AP}; and
transmitting, by the first STA, the ML BA frame on the second link {Song: STA transmitting ACK1+ACK2+ACK3 for acknowledged the reception status of DATA1, DATA2 & DATA3 from AP on band A (the claimed second link),
wherein the ML BA frame is transmitted based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’ {Song: Figs.21-23, 25, 27, 31 & 33 and ¶0222-wherein “when the receiving STA successfully receives data 1 in band A and data 2 in band B, and when BA frames (i.e., ACK1, ACK2, ¶0215) for data 1 and data 2 transmitted by the receiving STA…the transmitting STA (i.e., AP) can receive BA frames for data 1 and data 2 through band A, the transmitting STA may obtain information that data1 and data2 have been successfully received.” In other words, the claimed ML BA is the BA frame transmitted from the receiving STA when the receiving STA successfully received data1 in band A and data2 in band B, thus, the BA frame based on the acknowledgment policy (Fig.23) for successfully received data 1 and data 2 (e.g. BA frames comprise ACK1+ACK2), which is “other than ‘no acknowledgment’ as claimed, emphasis added}.
Song does not explicitly disclose (1) a first station (STA) affiliated with the second device and a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shafin (US 2023/0023779 A1) discloses Non-AP MLD-A in Fig.3A affiliated with two non-AP STAs {Shafin: ¶0062-¶0063, see also Figs.3B-3C}, corresponding to (1). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Shafin’s teaching to Song’s system with the motivation being to provide “interference management in wireless communications systems that include multi-link devices”{Shafin: ¶0002} and “an efficient way to utilize the available spectrum and achieve higher throughput than single-link operation” {Shafin: ¶0005}.
Regarding Claim 10. The method of claim 9, wherein when a reception end time of the first data frame is before a reception end time of the second data frame, transmission of the first reception status information is delayed after reception of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-33 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2, STA transmitting ACK1+ACK2+ACK3 to AP after reception of DATA2; In other words, the transmission of the DATA1 status information is delayed after reception of the DATA2, emphasis added}.
Regarding Claim 1.
-Claim 1 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
A method of a first device {Song: STA 110-Fig.1}, the method comprising:
performing, by a processor {Song: 111-Fig.1}, a first backoff operation for a first data frame on a first link {Song: Fig.29 wherein in band A, the AP or STA 110-Fig.1 performed a first backoff before transmitting DATA1};
performing, by the processor, a second backoff operation for a second data frame on a second link {Song: Fig.29 wherein in band B, the AP or STA 110-Fig.1 performed a second backoff before transmitting DATA2};
in response that the first backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device, the first data frame including one or more data units on the first link;
in response that the second backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a second station (STA) affiliated with the second device, the second data frame including one or more data units on the second link; and
receiving, from the first STA, a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame,
wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’.
Regarding Claim 14.
-Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 9 and further as following:
A first device {Song: STA1-Fig.1 & AP-Fig.31} comprising:
a processor {Song: processor 111-Fig.27 & ¶052}; and
a memory {Song: memory 112-Fig.1} storing one or more instructions {Song: software code 115-Fig.1} executable by the processor, wherein the one or more instructions are executed to perform:
performing a first backoff operation for a first data frame on a first link;
performing a second backoff operation for a second data frame on a second link;
in response that the first backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a first station (STA) affiliated with a second device, the first data frame including one or more data units on the first link;
in response that the second backoff operation is completed, transmitting, to a second STA affiliated with the second device, the second data frame including one or more data units on the second link; and
receiving, from the first STA, a multi-link (ML) block acknowledgment (BA) frame including first reception status information for the first data frame and second reception status information for the second data frame,
wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’.
Regarding Claim 3. With the same reasons a set forth in the method of claim 1, wherein the first data frame is an Extreme High Throughput (EHT) frame, and the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: ¶0003 wherein “The present specification proposes a technical feature that can be utilized in a new communication standard. For example, the new communication standard may be an extreme high throughput (EHT) standard which is currently being discussed. The EHT standard may use an increased bandwidth, an enhanced PHY layer protocol data unit (PPDU) structure, an enhanced sequence, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) scheme, or the like, which is newly proposed. The EHT standard may be called the IEEE 802.11be standard.”}.
Regarding Claim 6. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 1, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include: a condition in which a recipient of the first data frame and a recipient of the second data frame are same[,]; a condition in which the recipient is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) device; a condition in which backoff operations are performed for access categories (ACs) of data frames transmitted to the recipient; and a condition in which a transmission end time of the first data frame is before a transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 7. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 6, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “data 3 of FIG. 31 may include data 1, data 2, and information related to an ACK request for data 3”}, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is less than a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is before the transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA1 is before the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 8. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 6, wherein, in case that one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame {Song: Figs.31-34 & ¶0238 wherein “data 3 of FIG. 31 may include data 1, data 2, and information related to an ACK request for data 3”}, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is greater than or equal to a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is after the transmission end time of the second data frame {Song: Figs.31-34 wherein the transmission end time of the DATA3 is after the transmission end time of DATA2}.
Regarding Claim 18. The first device of claim 14, wherein, when one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include:
a condition in which a recipient of the first data frame and a recipient of the second data frame are same[,]; a condition in which the recipient is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) device; a condition in which backoff operations are performed for access categories (ACs) of data frames transmitted to the recipient; and a condition in which a transmission end time of the first data frame is before a transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 6 & 14.
Regarding Claim 19. The first device of claim 14, wherein, when one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is less than a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is before the transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 7 & 14.
Regarding Claim 20. The first device of claim 14, wherein, when one or more conditions are satisfied, the first data frame includes information indicating transmission of the ML BA frame, and the one or more conditions include at least one of a condition in which a difference between a transmission end time of the first data frame and a transmission end time of the second data frame is greater than or equal to a threshold or a condition in which the transmission end time of the first data frame is after the transmission end time of the second data frame.
-Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 8 & 14.
Claim(s) 2, 11 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 2022/0312521 A1) in view of Shafin (US 2023/0023779 A1), as applied to claims 1 & 9 as above, and further in view of Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1).
Regarding Claim 2. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 9, Song does not explicitly disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1) disclose wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame {Kim-721: ¶0302 wherein “when the user data is shared in the multilink/band of the STA, it is possible to transmit user data (or user data having the same Priority/QoS) having the same TID (Traffic ID) through different links/bands”}. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Kim-721’s teaching to Song’s system with the motivation being “for transmitting and receiving various control information to support an operation of a station in a WLAN system supporting multiple links.”{Kim-721: ¶0001}
Regarding Claim 15. With the same reasons as set forth in the first device of claim 14, wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
-Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2 & 14.
Regarding Claim 11. With the same reasons as set forth in the method of claim 9, wherein a traffic identifier (TID) for the first data frame is identical to a TID for the second data frame.
-Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2 & 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 2 & 16 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 2-20-26 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 101, 102 & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Song (US 2022/0312521 A1), Kim-721 (US 2021/0329721 A1), Shafin (US 2023/0023779 A1).
A/. With respect to Obviousness Double Patenting Rejections, Applicant argued that claim 1 has been amended to “provide for the transmission of an ML BA frame based an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment,’ whereas Song fails to disclose any such mechanism or policy based triggering.
-In reply, applicant is directed to the Obviousness Double Patenting Rejections as set forth as above including the amended limitations of wherein the ML BA frame is received based on an acknowledgment policy being other than ‘no acknowledgment’ {Song: Figs.21-23, 25, 27, 31 & 33 and ¶0222-wherein “when the receiving STA successfully receives data 1 in band A and data 2 in band B, and when BA frames (i.e., ACK1, ACK2, ¶0215) for data 1 and data 2 transmitted by the receiving STA…the transmitting STA (i.e., AP) can receive BA frames for data 1 and data 2 through band A, the transmitting STA may obtain information that data1 and data2 have been successfully received.” In other words, the claimed ML BA is the BA frame transmitted from the receiving STA when the receiving STA successfully received data1 in band A and data2 in band B, thus, the BA frame based on the acknowledgment policy (Fig.23) for successfully received data 1 and data 2 (e.g. BA frames comprise ACK1+ACK2), which is “other than ‘no acknowledgment’ as claimed, emphasis added}.
B/. With respect to 102 & 103 rejections, the applicant argued that Song fails to teach “wherein the first device performs the first backoff operation {Fig.29 wherein AP performed a first backoff before transmitting DATA1 on link A} and the second backoff operation {Fig.29 wherein AP performed a second backoff before transmitting DATA2 on link B}, respectively, and transmits the first data frame {DATA1-Fig.29} and the second data frame {DATA2-Fig.29} on the first link {link A-Fig.29} and the second link {link B-Fig.29}, respectively, wherein the first data frame is transmitted to the first STA {AP-Fig.29} affiliated with the second device {STA-Fig.29}, and the second data frame is transmitted to the second STA affiliated with the second device {STA-Fig.29}.
-In reply, 102 rejections have been overcome by the claim amendments of claims 1, 9 & 14.
-Also, in reply, the applicant is directed to newly 103 rejections as set forth as above regarding claims 1, 9 & 14.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Naribole (US 11357025 B2) discloses in n a wireless local area network, a reception station (STA) may receive, from a transmission STA, a first signal via a first link and a second signal via a second link. The reception STA may transmit, to the transmission STA via the second link, a response signal associated with whether the first and second signals are to be received. The response signal may include a first field associated with the feature of the response signal including responses with respect to whether a plurality of signals transmitted via a plurality of links are to be received {Fig.17}.
Lu (US 20210212118 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving data in a communication system supporting multiple links. A method for operation of a first device comprises the steps of: transmitting, in a first link from among multiple links, a first RTS frame to a second device; receiving, from the second device in the first link, a first CTS frame that is a response to the first RTS frame; when the first CTS frame is received, transmitting, in the first link, a first data frame to the second device; and transmitting, in a second link during transmission of the first data frame, a second RTS frame to the second device multi-link device (MLD) monitors each of first and second links in a multi-link operation in wireless communications, with the first link being a primary link and the second link being a secondary link. The MLD obtains a transmission opportunity (TXOP) on one of the first link and the second link as a result of performing a contention-based channel access on the first link and the second link. The MLD checks channel status of the other of the first link and the second link. The MLD then transmits one or more frames on the first link but not on the second link, on the second link but not on the first link, or on both the first link and the second link synchronously, responsive to the channel status of the other link given the TXOP being obtained on the one of the first link and the second link {Figs.5, 7, 9}.
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 PHUONGCHAU BA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 AM -5:30 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, RICKY NGO can be reached at 571-272-3139.
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.
/PHUONGCHAU BA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights