CTNF 18/428,796 CTNF 85636 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s Remarks filed on March 10, 2026. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group 1 including claims 1-9 was acknowledged The claim status is as follows: Pending claims: 1-9 and 21-31 Withdrawn and canceled claims: 10-20 Claims examined herein: 1-9 and 21-31 Claims 10-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are pending for examination, of which claims 21-31 were newly added. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21 AIA Claim s 1-6, 8-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson et al. (US 20240008080 A1), hereinafter Petterson . Regarding claim 1: Petterson discloses a first device (AP [0015]) comprising: a circuit configured to provide frames across a connection comprised of one or more links to a second device (radio interface, [element 1510 in Fig.15] performs transmissions of data, e.g., frames, on primary and secondary bandwidth parts {BWPs } [0015]) , the first device and the second device being access points (AP and other AP [0015]) , wherein the circuit is configured to provide a transmit opportunity duration on a first link and an opportunity for the second device to switch to a second link (providing TXOP for sharing and reserved TXOP [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to provide TXOP for switching to a second link; thus ensuring all relevant messages can be received by all APs – Petterson [0047]. Regarding claim 2: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses performing one or more of: 1. keep the first device on the first link if the second device services clients that support link switch while the first device services clients that do not support link s witch (second AP switches from a first channel, in the primary bandwidth part of the second AP to a second channel in the bandwidth part for which the TXOP was obtained [0057]); 2. switch the first device to the second link if a clear channel assessment status of the first device indicates that the second link is idle/unoccupied and the clear channel assessment status of the second device indicates that the second link is busy; or 3. switch the first device to the second link if the first device anticipates a larger improvement in quality of service for the first device by switching to the second link than the second device. Regarding claim 3: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses transmitting a trigger on the second link after the first device has switched to the second link (triggers a medium occupancy frame (MOF) in its primary bandwidth part [0069]), the trigger being addressed to at least one client device with listen-only capability on the second link (STAs listen to first band with the common primary channel [0074]), and the trigger causing the at least one client device to switch to full receive and transmit capability on the second link (causing multi-link devices supporting simultaneous operation on a first band and second band for receiving and sending transmissions [0081]). Regarding claim 4: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses providing frames across a connection to a third device (connecting to STAT31 [0043]) , wherein the circuit is configured to detect a first frame on the first link from an overlapping basic service set (on channel that is part of an overlap of primary bandwidth part of AP1 and primary bandwidth part of AP2 [0083]) and determining a second transmit opportunity duration for the overlapping basic service set (reserving {second} TXOP on set of second channels [0085]), wherein the circuit is configured to switch the first device to the second link or a third link ( second AP switches from a first channel, in the primary bandwidth part of the second AP to a second channel in the bandwidth part for which the TXOP was obtained [0057]). Petterson also mentions support for demanding Quality of Service [QoS] applications [0006]. Thus, Petterson discloses switching if a received-signal-strength of the first frame exceeds a first threshold and the second transmit opportunity duration exceeds a second threshold. Regarding claim 5: Petterspm discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses wherein the frames are provided according to an 802.11 protocol (transmissions on two links according to 802.11 [0012]). Regarding claim 6: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 4. Petterson further discloses receiving a second frame from the third device or to transmit a third frame to the third device, on the second link or third link during the second transmit opportunity duration (transmitting/ receiving to STAT3 [004] during reserved TXOP [0060]) . Regarding claim 8: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses wherein the second device is configured to operate on the first link according to a rule associated with the transmit opportunity duration (AP2 shares TXOP when AP1 and AP2 have a common primary bandwidth part, e.g., rule, [0062]). Regarding claim 9: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 1. Petterson further discloses wherein the first device and the second device are configured to operate on the first link for a backhaul phase and one of the first device (operating on radio link between station and APs, e.g., backhaul [0044]) or the second device is configured to operate on the second link during a fronthaul phase (link between AP1 and AP2 [0064]). Regarding claims 21-26: Claims 21-26 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 1-5 and 9 above, except that claims 22-26 are in a system claim format. Regarding claims 27-31: Claims 27-31 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 1-5 above, except that claims 27-31 is in a method claim format . 07-22 AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson , as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (20250379711 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lu . Regarding claim 7: Petterson discloses all limitations of claim 4. Petterson does not disclose switching the first device back to the first link no later than expiry of the second transmit opportunity duration. Lu, from the same field of endeavor, discloses switching the first device back to the first link no later than expiry of the second transmit opportunity duration (switching back to primary channel from secondary channel after the TXOP ends [0003]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to switch the first device back to the first link no later than expiry of the second transmit opportunity duration; thus improving the flexibility of instructing the device to perform switching – Lu [ 0188]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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 , Ayman A. Abaza , can be reached at 571-270-0422 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /C,Q.T/ /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/428,796 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights