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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/31/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-36 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 claims 1-36, The claims are lack of antecedent basis for some definite noun phrases appear without a prior introduction in the claims. For example: claim 1 recites “said station”, line 5, “the direction field”, line 20, “the TID-to-Link control field”, line 20; “the TID-To-Link mapping element, line 22, and “the LID-to-link mapping information, line 22. Other claims recite “the associated AP MLD”, “said peer non-AP MLD”, “the P2P TID Bitmap Valid subfield,” “the peer STA,” “the R‑TWT requesting STA”, “the restricted TWT traffic info field”, “the R TWT scheduling AP”, or “the R-TWT scheduled STA” is used without clear introduction within the same claim context. Applicant is suggested to ensure antecedent basis exists within each claim.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, the claims recite phrases such as “TID‑to‑Link mapping element”, “TID‑To‑Link Mapping Negotiation Support”, “TID‑to‑Link mapping information”, “Status Code” and “TID bitmap” without any definite structure, encoding, bit lengths, or values. A person of ordinary skill cannot determine, from the claim language itself, what is meant by these elements or how to identify them in the accused device. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) (claims must inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope). For example: claim 6 recites that negotiation support “is sent in a TDLS discovery request frame” but does not identify what field/bit or encoding constitutes “negotiation support.”
Regarding claim 35, the limitation, “(ii) wherein said wireless communication protocol does not allow triggered TXOP sharing procedure to enable P2P transmission inside an R‑TWT SP” is not clear, particularly because of the ambiguity of the negative limitation “does not allow.” The claim fails to specify the concrete protocol actions, message fields, or state conditions that persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) should use to determine when the protocol “does not allow” the recited behavior. It is unclear whether “does not allow” means any one or more of the following (non‑exhaustive): (i) the protocol contains an explicit prohibition message or flag; (ii) the protocol refrains from transmitting a particular action/trigger frame; (iii) the protocol requires a station to ignore received TXS trigger frames during an R‑TWT SP; (iv) the protocol prevents the AP from including the TXOP Sharing Mode subfield in trigger frames; (v) the protocol configures a station to never transmit P2P data during R‑TWT SPs; or (vi) the protocol requires some policy‑level decision that effectively prevents P2P inside R‑TWT SPs. Because the claim does not identify which of these (or other) behaviors defines the negative limitation, the scope of the claim is not reasonably ascertainable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Viger et al (US 2025/0280442, hereinafter “Viger”).
Regarding clam 1, Viger discloses an apparatus for communication in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising: (a) at least one modem coupled to at least one radio‑frequency (RF) circuit, with each RF circuit connected to one or multiple antennas (see FIG. 11a, FIG. 11b; paragraphs [0242]–[0250], describe the communication device 1100 comprises a communication bus 1113 to which there are preferably connected: a central processing unit 1101, … a memory 1103 for storing an executable code of methods or steps of the methods according to embodiments of the invention; and at least one communication interface 1102 connected to a wireless communication network, for example a communication network according to one of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards, via transmitting and receiving antennas 1104); (b) wherein said station (STA) is a separate STA, or as a STA within a multiple‑link device (MLD) (See Background, paragraphs [0067]–[0069] discusses a MLD is a logical entity that has more than one affiliated station (AP or non‑AP) and has a single medium access control (MAC) service access point (SAP) to logical link control (LLC), which includes one MAC data service. An AP MLD is thus made of multiple affiliated APs whereas a non‑AP MLD is made of multiple affiliated non‑AP stations); (c) a processor of said STA; (d) a non‑transitory memory storing instructions executable by the processor for wirelessly communicating with other STAs on a IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN); and (e) wherein said instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps of a wireless communications protocol, comprising: (i) wherein said STA operates in the wireless communications protocol as either an Access Point (AP) STA or a non‑AP STA, for communicating with other STAs using a carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) mechanism (Paragraphs [0242]–[0250], describes the communication device 1100 comprises a communication bus 1113 to which there are preferably connected: a central processing unit 1101, … a memory 1103 for storing an executable code of methods or steps of the methods according to embodiments of the invention; and at least one communication interface 1102 connected to a wireless communication network, for example a communication network according to one of the IEEE 802.11 family of standards, via transmitting and receiving antennas 1104 ); (ii) mapping traffic identifiers (TIDs) to tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) direct links by extra high throughput (EHT) STAs is capable of following implementation: and (iii) setting the direction subfield of the TID‑To‑Link control field of the TID‑To‑Link mapping element to a value which indicates that the TID‑To‑Link mapping element provides the TID‑to‑link mapping information for frames transmitted on the TDLS direct links (Viger describes establishing a P2P (TDLS) session operative on multiple links (multi‑link P2P) in paragraphs [0082]–[0097] and Fig. 2 timeline (TDLS Discovery/Setup sequence), that a non‑AP MLD establishes several single link TDLS direct links with the same peer non‑AP MLD, to define a multi‑link P2P or DiL communication session with the peer non‑AP MLD. Viger also describes determining a P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping specific to the multiple P2P links, see the summary section, Fig.2 and paragraphs [0130]-[0145]. Viger also teaches the TID‑to‑Link Mapping Control field 240 contains several subfields: a Direction subfield 241 indicating whether the mapping concerns downlink (DL), uplink (UL) or both UL and DL transmissions, see paragraph [0118]–[0124] and Fig. 2 description. Viger also teaches once the P2P TID‑To‑Link mapping is agreed on, the peer MLDs directly communicate through the multiple P2P links based on the negotiated TID‑to‑Link mapping. See paragraphs [0166]–[0176])
Regarding claim 2, Viger further teaches performing a default mapping mode, in which all TIDs are mapped to all setup links for downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) and peer‑to‑peer (P2P), and all setup links are enabled (See FIG. 2 and [0120]–[0126], Viger describes, by default, all TIDs are mapped onto all setup links for both DL and UL, and all setup links are enabled.)
Regarding clam 3, Viger further teaches signaling a capability for TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support for TDLS direct link(s) with a signal design (Paragraphs paragraphs [0184]- [0190] and Fig. 8 discloses a Negotiation Supported field in the TDLS Multi‑Link IE and indicates it may be included in Discovery/Setup frames. Viger teaches that a P2P TID‑to‑Link Mapping Negotiation Supported field 873 is used to signal whether the P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping specific to the multiple P2P links is to be negotiated or not. Field 873 may be set to 1 to indicate the negotiation is starting. In this implementation, the P2P TID‑to‑Link Mapping Negotiation Supported field 873 is included in the Common Info field 470 of the TDLS Multi‑Link information element 800.)
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites mostly similar claimed features of claim 1 with an addition that focuses on performing negotiation of a P2P TID‑to‑link mapping for a TDLS direct link during TDLS direct link setup (Viger teaches negotiating mapping during TDLS setup. See paragraphs [0242]–[0250]) for negotiation of a TID‑to‑Link mapping included in TDLS Action frames and optionally in TDLS Setup Request/Response in FIGs. 2, 3, 6–9 and paragraphs ~[0118]–[0190]).
Regarding claim 5, Viger further teaches a negotiating initiator EHT STA MLD including TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support and TID‑to‑Link mapping information in a frame sent to the associated AP MLD, or in peer‑to‑peer (P2P) mode to a peer non‑AP MLD during TDLS setup (See FIGs. 3, 5–9; paragraphs [0150]–[0190] for a P2P TID‑to‑Link Negotiation Supported field in the TDLS Multi‑Link IE and placing the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE in TDLS Discovery/Setup frames; also describes both tunneling via AP and direct P2P frame exchange in examples).
Regarding claim 6, Viger further teaches said TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support for TDLS direct link(s) and TID‑to‑Link mapping information is sent in a TDLS discovery request frame (FIG. 3; FIG. 8; paragraphs [0150]–[0188] for the discussion including the Negotiation Supported field and TID‑to‑Link mapping IE in a TDLS Discovery Request.)
Regarding claim 7, wherein said TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support for TDLS direct link(s) and TID‑to‑Link mapping information is sent in a TDLS setup request frame (Viger explicitly teaches inclusion of the same fields/IEs in TDLS Setup Request frames, see FIG. 3/6 and paragraphs [0160]–[0190]).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the TID‑to‑link mapping field contains a TID‑to‑link mapping element that indicates a TDLS direct link on which frames belonging to each TID can be exchanged (Viger provides the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE (Figure 2), defines the Direction subfield (DL/UL/both) and the Link Mapping of TID n bitfields indicating mapping to specific link IDs, see paragraphs [0118]–[0126]).
Regarding claim 9, wherein said peer non‑AP MLD contains TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support, status code and TID‑to‑Link mapping information (Viger shows the responding MLD can accept/reject/suggest another mapping and that response frames carry TDLS Multi‑Link IE and can include the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE, see FIGs 6–7 and paragraphs [0166]–[0190]).
Regarding claim 10, wherein said TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support, status code and TID‑to‑Link mapping information is contained in a TDLS discovery response frame, and/or a TDLS Setup Response frame, or other frames sent back to the associated AP MLD or to the mapping initiator non‑AP MLD during TDLS setup (Viger explicitly describes Discovery Response and Setup Response frames conveying Link Identifier and TDLS Multi‑Link IE and possibly the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE; responses transmitted by the responder are described in the TDLS flows, see FIG. 3, FIGs. 6–7 and paragraphs ~[0156]–[0178]).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the status code indicates the requested TID‑to‑Link mapping information as carried in frames addressed to the receiver, which can be accepted, or rejected, or a suggested preferred mapping supplied by the peer non‑AP MLD (Viger describes the responder accepting/rejecting the setup request and that the response may include a counter‑proposal TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE; status codes are used in responses for setup, see paragraphs [0166]–[0188], and FIGs.6–7).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the TID‑to‑Link mapping information is carried in a received TDLS discovery or setup request frame, or other frames addressed to the receiver (Viger teaches the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE may be included in TDLS Discovery/Setup Request frames and in TDLS Action frames after setup, see FIGs. 3, 5–9 and paragraphs [0150]–[0186]).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the TID‑to‑Link mapping information indicates the preferred TID(s) mapping on the TDLS direct link (Viger teaches TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE includes per‑TID link mapping bitfields (“Link Mapping Of TID n” fields) indicating which link(s) are allowed for frames of a given TID, see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0118]–[0126], and negotiation examples described in paragraphs [0130]–[0176]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites mostly similar to claimed features of claim 1 with an addition that focuses on performing a negotiation of TID‑to‑link mapping for TDLS direct link after TDLS direct link setup as a negotiating initiator non‑AP STA MLD which supports TID‑to‑link mapping and sends an individually addressed TID‑to‑link mapping request frame to a P2P peer non‑AP MLD that has indicated support of TID‑to‑link mapping negotiation (Viger teaches that negotiation or an additional negotiation (e.g. to change the current P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping) may take place during the lifetime of the established multi‑link P2P session … Dedicated frames, e.g. new TDLS Action frames, can be defined to carry the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE defining the proposed P2P TID‑to‑Link, see paragraphs [0148]–[0156] and Fig.2. Viger also teaches individually addressed Request to peer that indicated support, see TDLS Multi‑Link IE and Negotiation Supported field discussion; FIG. 8 and paragraphs [0184]–[0190]) describes TDLS Action frames (Discovery/Setup/other TDLS Action frames) addressed between peer STAs/MLDs and explains that a peer that previously signaled negotiation support can be sent mapping proposals via TDLS Action frames.)
Regarding claim 15, wherein the exchange in supporting TID‑to‑link mapping negotiation is performed during a TDLS direct link setup and includes TID‑To‑Link mapping negotiation support in the exchanged frames (Viger teaches negotiation during setup such that the TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE is included in at least one management frame used to establish the P2P communication session. … The proposed P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping may be included in the same TDLS Action frame as P2P TID‑to‑Link Mapping Negotiation Supported field 873, see paragraphs [0150]–[0162], FIG.8. Viger shows the P2P TID‑to‑Link Mapping Negotiation Supported field 873 included in Common Info 470 of the TDLS Multi‑Link IE and its inclusion in Discovery/Setup Request frames, See FIG.8 and paragraphs [0184]–[0190]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the P2P peer non‑AP MLD sends an individually addressed TID‑to‑link mapping response frame to the negotiating initiator non‑AP STA MLD indicating if it accepts the requested TID‑to‑link mapping, or rejects the proposed TID‑to‑link mapping, or suggests a preferred mapping which is different from the requested TID‑to‑link mapping (Viger teaches the TDLS responder non‑AP MLD may only accept or refuse the proposed P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping. In other embodiments, the TDLS responder non‑AP MLD may accept, refuse the proposal or also provide the TDLS initiator non‑AP MLD with a counter‑proposal of P2P TID‑to‑Link mapping … The response … is transmitted by the responder TDLS initiator non‑AP MLD …”, see paragraphs [0166]–[0176] and FIGs 6–7. Viger also talks about individually addressed Response frame in reference to Discovery/Setup Response TDLS Action frames carrying Link Identifier, TDLS Multi‑Link IE and optionally a TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE addressed between peer STAs, see FIG.3, FIGs.6–7 and paragraphs [0156]–[0178]).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the negotiating initiator non‑AP STA MLD considers whether to accept the preferred TID‑to‑link mapping of the peer MLD (Viger teaches the initiator evaluating responder’s response and possibly accepting the counter‑proposal, paragraphs [0168] – [0178] and FIGs.6–7.)
Regarding claim 18, wherein upon two non‑AP MLDs having negotiated a TID‑to‑link mapping, in which either MLD can tear down the negotiated P2P TID‑to‑link mapping by sending an individually addressed TID‑To‑Link Mapping Teardown frame, wherein after teardown, the MLDs operate in the default mapping mode (Viger describes TID‑to‑Link mapping Request/Response/Teardown frames used to convey a TID‑to‑Link Mapping IE 200 and the ability for either MLD to initiate mapping setup or changes, see paragraphs [0148]–[0156] and FIG.2. Viger also explicitly states “By default, all TIDs are mapped onto all setup links for both DL and UL, and all setup links are enabled.” See paragraphs [0120] - [0126].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY QUOC NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-3139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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.
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.
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464