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 .
Claims 1-14, 21-26 is/are presented in amendments of 06/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Remarks as filed 06/26/2026 has been fully considered.
A new ground of rejection is established to address the limitations as amended in the independent claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the antecedent basis issue:
Applicant offers no explanation other than delegating to one of ordinary skill in the art to guess that scope of the claim, by arguing “when read in light of the claim languages as a whole a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that "the frame" to refer to the frame including the AAR control field”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if read in the context that “the frame” is referring to a frame being transmitted, however the base claims 1 and 8 indicate three frames being transmitted, i.e. the reception response frame, the AAR-field frame, and the second data frame. The term “the frame” in itself is open ended and can be referred to any of those. The claims are required to be concise yet clear, and not relying benefit of the doubts to define their scopes.
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 is/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 3 recites “a time required for transmitting the frame and a time required for switching the one or more radio chains”, as does claim 10.
Claim 4 also recites “the reception response frame and the frame”. So does claim 11.
Given that the independent claims 1 and 8, respectively, establish the presence of various frames: a first data frame, a response frame, and configuration information frame, and a second data frame. Therefore, each of the instances of the limitation “the frame” in claims 3, 4, 10, and 11 is indefinite because it is unclear which of the listed frames is being referred to by said limitation of “the frame”. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Newly added claims 21 -26 recites “the frame requests an immediate response”. the base claims 1 and 8 indicate three frames are being transmitted, the reception response frame, the AAR-field frame, and the second data frame. The term “the frame” is open ended and can be referred to any of the listed frames. The same antecedent basis issues are applied as discussed above.
Claims 21 and 24 recite “the frame requests an immediate response”.
Per MPEP 2173.05(g(, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim is indefinite for reciting an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits.
In this case, claims 21 and 24 are directed to functional limitation that describes an intended effect/result Applicant would like to happen, i.e. the frame causing an immediate response from the receiving side. The claims are, however, silent on what exact parameter/field/indicia to be embedded in such a frame that would cause such an immediate response. The Specification appears to provide no guidance on how exactly this mechanism would play out. Furthermore, the term “immediate” is subjective and unclear. To human perception, a time delay of 1 microsecond is as “immediate” as 2 microsecond, however in the language of machine, a time to response is defined by perceptible to internal clock and defined time slot and/or a time threshold. Processing delay and message queue priority guarantee a delay would occur, and therefore the concept “immediate” practically does not exist. The claims are therefore indefinite on multiple prongs, the subjectivity of the term “immediate” and the lack of clear structure limits on how a frame would achieve an “immediate response”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Hwang – (KR-20210007881) in view of Viger et al. (US 2024/024481).
As to claim 1:
Hwang discloses:
A method of a first device, comprising:
receiving a first data frame from a second device on a first link; transmitting a reception response frame for the first data frame to the second device on the first link;
(See page 31, lines 2-5, receiving a first frame including information for multi-link operation of the first communication node at the second communication node; receiving a second frame including information for multi-link operation of the second communication node, in response to the first frame, from the second communication node. See line 28, “Setting a primary link for multi-link transmission to a second communication node as a first link”)
transmitting a frame including a field having configuration information for transmission of a second data frame to the second device on the first link; (See page 31, lines 29-30, the first communication node transmitting a frame including an indicator indicating to change the primary link from the first link to the second link to the second communication node. See page 32, line 4, wherein the frame further includes band information and channel information of the second link, i.e. configuration information)
and transmitting the second data frame to the second device on a second link based on the field having configuration information. (page 31, line 31, “transmitting a data frame from the second link to the second communication node” based on the band/channel information”)
Hwang already disclose the transmitted frame having configuration to trigger the transmission of second data frame on a second link, however, is silent on the type of such frame being specifically an Assisted AP Request control field.
In a same field of multi-link assisted transmission, in at least ¶0441-0048, 0461-0464, also ¶0490-0493, Viger discloses multi-link operation between two MLD entities, teaches the use of Assisted AP Request control field to carry configuration of a second link to be used as alternative. Specifically, a non-AP MLD to send a frame contain AAR control field having a control ID, and an assisted AP link ID bitmap identifying a second link (i.e. configuration) to be used for sending other data frames.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to put Hwang’s second link configuration into Viger’s AAR control field. Both Hwang and Viger have common goal of informing configuration of a second link as alternative link for subsequent transmission. Viger supplies the specific AAR field, a variant field whose job is exactly to achieve said goal, and is a standard A-control field built for such purpose. The result of such implementation is thus predictable (i.e. configuration of the second link is informed to the other party, thus arriving the goal Hwang intends to achieve) and advantageous (i.e. using standard field, eliminating the needs to create new fields that further complicate the protocol).
As to claim 8:
Hwang discloses:
A method of a second device, comprising:
transmitting a first data frame to a first device on a first link using multiple spatial streams;
receiving a reception response frame for the first data frame from the first device on the first link; (See page 31, lines 2-5, from a first communication node, transmitting a first frame including information for multi-link operation of the first communication node to the second communication node; receiving a second frame including information for multi-link operation of the second communication node in response to the first frame from the second communication node. See line 28, “Setting a primary link for multi-link transmission to a second communication node as a first link”)
receiving a frame including configuration information field for transmission of a second data frame from the first device on the first link; (See page 31, lines 29-30, the first communication node transmitting a frame including an indicator indicating to change the primary link from the first link to the second link to the second communication node. See page 32, line 4, wherein the frame further includes band information and channel information of the second link, i.e. configuration information)
and receiving the second data frame from the first device on a second link based on the configuration information field. (page 31, line 31, “transmitting a data frame from the second link to the second communication node” based on the band/channel information”)
Hwang already disclose the transmitted frame having configuration to trigger the transmission of second data frame on a second link, however, is silent on the type of such frame being specifically an Assisted AP Request control field.
In a same field of multi-link assisted transmission, in at least ¶0441-0048, 0461-0464, also ¶0490-0493, Viger discloses multi-link operation between two MLD entities, teaches the use of Assisted AP Request control field to carry configuration of a second link to be used as alternative. Specifically, a non-AP MLD to send a frame contain AAR control field having a control ID, and an assisted AP link ID bitmap identifying a second link (i.e. configuration) to be used for sending other data frames.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to put Hwang’s second link configuration into Viger’s AAR control field. Both Hwang and Viger have common goal of informing configuration of a second link as alternative link for subsequent transmission. Viger supplies the specific AAR field, a variant field whose job is exactly to achieve said goal, and is a standard A-control field built for such purpose. The result of such implementation is thus predictable (i.e. configuration of the second link is informed to the other party, thus arriving the goal Hwang intends to achieve) and advantageous (i.e. using standard field, eliminating the needs to create new fields that further complicate the protocol).
As to claims 21 and 24:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claims 1/8, wherein the frame requests an immediate response. (See at least Viger, ¶0187, recipient send BA under immediate block act policy, namely BA must come during same TXOP. See also ¶0195, 0215)
As to claims 22 and 25:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claims 1/8, wherein the transmission of the frame is triggered by the first device requesting an assistance of the second device (See Viger, ¶0443-0445, 0447, STA (first device) soliciting the AP MLD (second device) so the other AP to send a trigger. )
As to claims 23 and 26:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claims 1/8, wherein a transmission of the frame is for recovering medium synchronization through the second link (See Viger, ¶0441-0444, using the second link to recover from the other link that lose its medium synchronization.)
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang – (KR-20210007881) in view of Viger et al. (US 2024/024481)) in view of Quan et al. (US 2013/0195036).
As to claim 2:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on the specific steps of receiving a multi user (MU)-request-to-send (RTS) frame from the second device on the first link; and transmitting a clear-to-send (CTS) frame to the second device in response to the MU-RTS frame on the first link, wherein the first data frame is received after transmission of the CTS frame.
Quan, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in ¶0040, 0075, 0077, that the STAs to send a RTS frame to the AP when it wishes to send a transmission, and in response, the AP responds with an acknowledge message comprising a CTS frame before any data frame is exchanged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the exchange of messages of Hwang is preceded by a RTS-CTS procedure. This implementation is advantageous because, per Quan - ¶0040, “Use of RTS and CTS may also reduce overhead because the RTS and CTS message frames are relatively shorter than the full message frame intended to be transmitted by the transmitting node”
As to claim 3:
Hwang in view of Viger in view of Quan discloses all limitations of claim 2, wherein a reception operation is not performed on the second link during a first period from a time of transmitting the CTS frame to a completion time of switching one or more radio chains of the first device, and the first period includes a time required for transmitting CTS frame, a time required for receiving the first data frame, a time required for transmitting the reception response frame, a time required for transmitting the third data frame and a time required for switching the one or more radio chains.
(This claim is directed to negative language. Sese page 31-32 of Hwang, during period of time prior to officially switching to the secondary link, neither of the first and the second communication nodes transmit or receive any information over the secondary link. As such this period covers a first period from a time of transmitting the CTS frame to a completion time of switching one or more radio chains of the first device, and the first period includes a time required for transmitting CTS frame, a time required for receiving the first data frame, a time required for transmitting the reception response frame, a time required for transmitting the third data frame and a time required for switching the one or more radio chains because both the first and second communication nodes have used the secondary link yet at this time.)
As to claim 9:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting a multi user (MU)-request-to-send (RTS) frame to the first device on the first link; and receiving a clear-to-send (CTS) frame for the MU-RTS frame from the first device on the first link, wherein the first data frame is transmitted after reception of the CTS frame.
Quan, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in ¶0040, 0075, 0077, that the STAs to send a RTS frame to the AP when it wishes to send a transmission, and in response, the AP responds with an acknowledge message comprising a CTS frame before any data frame is exchanged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the exchange of messages of Hwang is preceded by a RTS-CTS procedure. This implementation is advantageous because, per Quan - ¶0040, “Use of RTS and CTS may also reduce overhead because the RTS and CTS message frames are relatively shorter than the full message frame intended to be transmitted by the transmitting node”
As to claim 10:
Hwang in view of Viger in view of Quan discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein a reception operation of the first device is not performed on the second link during a first period from a time of receiving the CTS frame to a completion time of switching one or more radio chains of the first device, and the first period includes a time required for receiving the CTS frame, a time required for transmitting the first data frame, a time required for receiving the reception response frame, a time required for receiving the frame and a time required for switching the one or more radio chains.
(This claim is directed to negative language. Sese page 31-32 of Hwang, during period of time prior to officially switching to the secondary link, neither of the first and the second communication nodes transmit or receive any information over the secondary link. As such this period covers a first period from a time of transmitting the CTS frame to a completion time of switching one or more radio chains of the first device, and the first period includes a time required for transmitting CTS frame, a time required for receiving the first data frame, a time required for transmitting the reception response frame, a time required for transmitting the third data frame and a time required for switching the one or more radio chains because both the first and second communication nodes have used the secondary link yet at this time.)
Claim(s) 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang – (KR-20210007881) in view of Viger et al. (US 2024/024481)) in view of Wang (US 2013/0039297) and in further view of Oteri et al. (WO 2018232101).
As to claims 4, 11:
Hwang in view of Viger discloses all limitations of claim 1/8, and regarding: the reception response frame and the frame are configured in form of an aggregated (A)-medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU), and the frame is a quality of service (QoS) Null frame. See Viger, ¶0309, 0367, QoS Null frame.
Neither discloses: : the reception response frame and the frame are configured in form of an aggregated (A)-medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU)
Wang, in a related field of endeavor, discloses traffic for multiple users can be configured into aggregated MAC PDU, and this aggregated data would be then be transmitted from the access point (eNB) per ¶0050.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Hwang’s response frame and the frame are configured in form of an aggregated (A)-medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU). This implementation is advantageous because aggregated data can be transmitted using the same signaling and thus reduces control signal overhead as explicitly stated in ¶0050 of Wang.
Neither of Hwang/Viger and Wang disclose the third data frame is a quality of service (QoS) Null frame.
Oteri, in a related field of endeavor, discloses in at least ¶0272-0274 discloses a channel configuration message (as similar to the third data frame of Hwang) to be in form of a QoS Null frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Hwang’s the third data frame is a quality of service (QoS) Null frame. This implementation is particularly advantageous because a QoS Null frame is considered light because it does not contain MSDU payload, as such reduces overhead/latency. And because it is technically of a QoS-class signal, it is generally prioritized, thus ensuring timely delivery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14 is/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.
The references of record disclose all limitations of the base claims 1 and 8, however do not disclose subject matters of claims 5 and 12, namely “the AAR control field includes a first field indicating a link identifier (ID) of the second link, a second field indicating an access category (AC) of the second data frame and a third field indicating a scheme of a transmission/reception procedure of the second data frame”.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 depend upon their respective base claims 5 and 12 and are thus addressed by the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0353226 - A wireless device (e.g., an access point or a station) capable of supporting multiple chain configuration modes may monitor traffic on a wireless channel. The wireless device may, based on the monitoring, determine a series of values for a metric that is indicative of communication conditions. The metric may be a packet rate, channel congestion, or signal strength. The wireless device may dynamically select one of the supported chain configuration modes in which to operate based on the series of values for the metric. In some cases, the wireless device may compute a value for the metric based on the series of values and compare the value of the metric to a predetermined threshold. In such cases, selection of the chain configuration mode may be based on the results of the comparison.
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 QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights