DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the application filed on 26 December 2023, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-7.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the a processor” in line 2. Th word “the” must be deleted to render the claim affirmative.
The word “Claim” recited in line 1 of claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 must be written in lowercase letters.
Claim 6 recites the acronym AC in line 2. The acronym AC must be defined as “Access Category (AC)” the first time it is recited in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the acronym AC in line 2. The acronym AC must be defined as “Access Category (AC)” the first time it is recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 5-7 and 17-19 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “pertinent information” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because the word “pertinent” is a relative term. Thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art cannot objectively assess what is meant by “pertinent” information as recited in the claim. The word must be deleted from the claim because it is not necessary to understand the remaining limitations.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “pertinent information” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite because the word “pertinent” is a relative term. Thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art cannot objectively assess what is meant by “pertinent” information as recited in the claim. The word must be deleted from the claim because it is not necessary to understand the remaining limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0128915 A1).
For claims 1 and 13, Kim discloses an apparatus (Fig 4, AP MLD 410 or Fig 2, AP STA 210), comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly (Fig 2, transceiver 240); and
a processor (Fig 2, processor 220) coupled to the transceiver and configured to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, via the transceiver, a traffic identifier (TID)-based trigger frame to one or more stations (STAs) ([0180] AP MLD transmits a request frame (trigger frame) to a non-AP MLD (STA)); and
receiving, via the transceiver, a trigger-based (TB) uplink (UL) transmission from at least a first STA of the one or more STAs responsive to transmitting the TID-based trigger frame ([0180] the non-AP MLD (STA) transmits a response frame to the AP MLD),
wherein the receiving of the TB UL transmission comprises receiving a first type of traffic corresponding to a first TID indicated by first TID information that is associated with the first STA and included in the TID-based trigger frame ([0180] the response frame comprises a mapping of a first TID to a first link between a first STA and the AP MLD).
For claims 2 and 14, Kim discloses the transmitting of the TID-based trigger frame comprises generating the TID-based trigger frame using a TID-based UL trigger frame generator (Fig 26, processor 2631 is a frame generator).
For claims 3, 11, and 15, Kim discloses the TID-based trigger frame further comprises second TID information associated with a second STA of the one or more STAs, and wherein the second TID information indicates a second TID ([0188] the first TID is mapped to a first type of traffic on the first link for the first STA, and the second TID is mapped to a second type of traffic on the second link for the second STA).
For claims 4 and 16, Kim discloses the receiving of the TB UL transmission further comprises receiving a second type of traffic corresponding to the second TID and from the second STA ([0188] the first TID is mapped to a first type of traffic on the first link for the first STA, and the second TID is mapped to a second type of traffic on the second link for the second STA).
For claim 9, Kim discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a processor (Fig 26, processor 2631) of an apparatus (Fig 2, STA 260 or Fig 4, STA MLD 420) implemented in a first station (STA) (Fig 2, STA 260), a traffic identifier (TID)-based trigger frame ([0180] AP MLD transmits a request frame (trigger frame) to a non-AP MLD (STA)); and
performing, by the processor (Fig 2, processor 270), a trigger-based (TB) uplink (UL) transmission responsive to receiving the TID-based trigger frame ([0180] the non-AP MLD (STA) transmits a response frame to the AP MLD),
wherein the performing of the TB UL transmission comprises transmitting a first type of traffic corresponding to a first TID indicated by first TID information that is associated with the first STA and included in the TID-based trigger frame ([0180] the response frame comprises a mapping of a first TID to a first link between a first STA and the AP MLD).
For claim 10, Kim discloses the receiving of the TID-based trigger frame comprises handling the TID-based trigger frame using a TID-based UL trigger frame handler (Fig 26, processor 2631 is a frame handler).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
Claims 5-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0128915 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0025546 A1).
For claims 5 and 17, Kim does not expressly disclose the one or more STAs further comprise a third STA that does not support the TID-based trigger frame, and wherein the TID- based trigger frame further comprises pertinent information for the third STA.
Hu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a frame generated by one of the stations comprises a TID subfield which may have a value of 0 or 1 which indicates whether the frame is a TID TB frame. When the frame is not a TID frame, it may be an AC-BE, AC-VI, or AC-VO frame indicating a different traffic category [0099]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure a third STA in the communication network of Kim to generate an AC frame based on the teachings of Hu at the time of the invention.
For claims 6-7 and 18-19, Kim does not expressly disclose the receiving of the TB UL transmission further comprises receiving a third type of traffic corresponding to the AC information and from the third STA, and wherein the third type of traffic corresponds to a third TID that is associated with the AC information.
Hu, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a frame generated by one of the stations comprises a TID subfield which may have a value of 0 or 1 which indicates whether the frame is a TID TB frame. When the frame is not a TID frame, it may be an AC-BE, AC-VI, or AC-VO frame indicating a different traffic category [0099]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure a third STA in the communication network of Kim to generate an AC frame based on the teachings of Hu at the time of the invention.
7. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0128915 A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 2023/0140556 A1).
For claims 8 and 20, Kim does not expressly disclose the receiving of the TB UL transmission comprises receiving a high-efficiency (HE) or extremely-high-throughput (EHT) TB transmission.
Ko, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches receiving a high-efficiency (HE) or extremely-high-throughput (EHT) TB transmission ([0185], lines 1-5, where the stations transmit a trigger-based (TB) uplink transmission to the AP, wherein the transmission is an EHT TB PPDU). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in the art to implement Ko’s transmission method in the communication network of Kim at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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 K 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471