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 .
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 4 and 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.
Claims 4 and 19 recite the limitation "the maximum allowable time deviation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the maximum allowable time deviation” is interpreted according to applicant’s specification [0082] as a maximum duration for the second TXOP to end after the end time of the first TXOP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 3, 5, 8, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by KO et al. (US 20230262768 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
KO discloses “A method for wireless communication, applied to a non-access point multi-link device (Non-AP MLD), wherein the Non-AP MLD at least comprises a first non- access point station (Non-AP STA) affiliated to the Non-AP MLD and a second Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD” (See [0010] a method for a multi-link transmission operation using a wireless LAN. See Fig. 56, [464] a non-AP multi-link device includes a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively), “the first Non-AP STA operates on a primary link and obtains a first transmission opportunity (TXOP) on the primary link, the second Non-AP STA operates on a non-primary link and obtains a second TXOP on the non-primary link” (See [0407] The first link (link1) is a mandatory link and the second link (link2) is an optional link. [0488] The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) independently perform a channel access in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively. [0275] a transmission opportunity (TXOP) obtained through a channel contention process in each link may be independently obtained in the corresponding link. Note: Since STA1 and STA2 independently perform channel access on link1 and link2, and a TXOP is obtained through channel contention in each link is independently obtained in the corresponding link, it means that a first TXOP on the first link and a second TXOP on the second link are obtained by the respective stations operating on those links), “and the method comprises: simultaneously transmitting, by the first Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD and the second Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD, at least one physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) in the first TXOP and the second TXOP respectively” (See [0469] When the channel access is successful in the first link (link1), the second link (link2) has been continuously idle for a pre-designated time interval, and thus the first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) simultaneously perform transmission. [0441] multiple stations performing transmission to a non-STR multi-link device may align the ends of PPDUs), “wherein the first TXOP and the second TXOP meet: end times of PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link meet an alignment requirement wherein the end times of PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link meet an alignment requirement comprises: the end times of the PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non- primary link are different and a difference between the end times of the PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link is less than or equal to 8 microseconds” (See [0441] multiple stations performing transmission to a non-STR multi-link device may align the ends of PPDUs. [414] Simultaneous terminating of transmission of multiple PPDUs may be called aligning the ends of PPDUs. In addition, when the difference between the transmission end time points of multiple PPDUs is smaller than a threshold or is equal to or smaller than the threshold, the ends of the multiple PPDUs may be considered to be aligned. The threshold may be 8 us).
Regarding claim 3,
KO discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein a time when the second Non-AP STA starts transmitting the PPDU in the second TXOP is not earlier than a time when the first Non-AP STA starts transmitting the PPDU in the first TXOP” (See [0412] when a backoff counter reaches 0 in an optional link, a backoff counter reaches 0 in a mandatory link or transmission is being performed in the mandatory link, the non-STR soft AP multi-link device may start transmission in the optional link. [0413] Even in a case where a non-STR soft AP multi-link device detects a channel of an optional link being idle for a pre-designated time interval, when transmission in a mandatory link has not been performed, start of transmission in the optional link may not be allowed). Note: The start of a PPDU transmission in the second link (where the second TXOP is obtained), is not earlier than the start of PPDU transmission in the first link (where the first TXOP is obtained).
Regarding claim 5,
KO discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the Non-AP MLD is associated with a Non Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (NSTR) access point multi-link device (AP MLD), the NSTR AP MLD at least comprises a first access point (AP) operating on the primary link and a second AP operating on the non-primary link, and a link where the first AP is located and a link where the second AP is located belong to an NSTR link pair of the NSTR AP MLD” (See [0404] The mandatory link and the optional link of a non-STR soft AP multi-link device may be designated by the non-STR soft AP multi-link device. Specifically, when a multi-link is set up between a non-STR soft AP multi-link device and a non-AP multi-link device, a mandatory link and an optional link may be configured. See Fig. 56, [0462] FIG. 56 shows that a multi-link device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure performs transmission in non-STR link pair, based on a basic link. [0464] In an embodiment of FIG. 56, an AP multi-link device includes a first AP (AP1) and a second AP (AP2). The first AP (AP1) and the second AP (AP2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively. In addition, a non-AP multi-link device includes a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively).
Regarding claim 8,
KO discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein regarding the PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link, an end time of a PPDU transmitted on the primary link and carrying a reply acknowledgment (ACK) frame is not later than an end time of a PPDU transmitted on the non-primary link and carrying a reply ACK frame” (See [0290] in a case where one or more of frames transmitted by the transmission MLD require transmission of a response frame, the transmission end time points of PPDUs including frames transmitted in the multiple links may match each other. [0440] The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) simultaneously transmit a response frame as a response for the request frame. [0360] if a frame transmitted in link1 or link2 requests transmission of a response frame (e.g., ACK frame or BlockAck frame), the transmission end time points of downlink frames transmitted in link1 and link2 may be the same). Note: PPDUs carrying ACK transmitted in the primary and non-primary links end at the same time, which means that the end time of the PPDU carrying ACK and transmitted on the primary link is not later the end time of the PPDU carrying ACK and transmitted on the non-primary link.
Regarding claim 16,
KO discloses “A device for wireless communication, used as a non-access point multi-link device (Non-AP MLD), wherein the device comprises: a memory, configured to store a computer program; and a processor, configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory” (See Fig. 10, Non-AP MLD1), “wherein the Non-AP MLD at least comprises a first non- access point station (Non-AP STA) affiliated to the Non-AP MLD and a second Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD” (See [0010] a method for a multi-link transmission operation using a wireless LAN. See Fig. 56, [464] a non-AP multi-link device includes a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively), “the first Non-AP STA operates on a primary link and obtains a first transmission opportunity (TXOP) on the primary link, the second Non-AP STA operates on a non-primary link and obtains a second TXOP on the non-primary link” (See [0407] The first link (link1) is a mandatory link and the second link (link2) is an optional link. [0488] The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) independently perform a channel access in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively. [0275] a transmission opportunity (TXOP) obtained through a channel contention process in each link may be independently obtained in the corresponding link. Note: Since STA1 and STA2 independently perform channel access on link1 and link2, and a TXOP is obtained through channel contention in each link is independently obtained in the corresponding link, it means that a first TXOP on the first link and a second TXOP on the second link are obtained by the respective stations operating on those links), “to execute a method for wireless communication comprising: simultaneously transmitting, by the first Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD and the second Non-AP STA affiliated to the Non-AP MLD, at least one physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) in the first TXOP and the second TXOP respectively” (See [0469] When the channel access is successful in the first link (link1), the second link (link2) has been continuously idle for a pre-designated time interval, and thus the first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) simultaneously perform transmission. [0441] multiple stations performing transmission to a non-STR multi-link device may align the ends of PPDUs), “wherein the first TXOP and the second TXOP meet: end times of PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link meet an alignment requirement; wherein the end times of PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link meet an alignment requirement comprises: the end times of the PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non- primary link are different and a difference between the end times of the PPDUs transmitted simultaneously on the primary link and the non-primary link is less than or equal to 8 microseconds” (See [0441] multiple stations performing transmission to a non-STR multi-link device may align the ends of PPDUs. [414] Simultaneous terminating of transmission of multiple PPDUs may be called aligning the ends of PPDUs. In addition, when the difference between the transmission end time points of multiple PPDUs is smaller than a threshold or is equal to or smaller than the threshold, the ends of the multiple PPDUs may be considered to be aligned. The threshold may be 8 us).
Regarding claim 18,
KO discloses “The device of claim 16, wherein a time when the second Non-AP STA starts transmitting the PPDU in the second TXOP is not earlier than a time when the first Non-AP STA starts transmitting the PPDU in the first TXOP” (See [0412] when a backoff counter reaches 0 in an optional link, a backoff counter reaches 0 in a mandatory link or transmission is being performed in the mandatory link, the non-STR soft AP multi-link device may start transmission in the optional link. [0413] Even in a case where a non-STR soft AP multi-link device detects a channel of an optional link being idle for a pre-designated time interval, when transmission in a mandatory link has not been performed, start of transmission in the optional link may not be allowed). Note: The start of a PPDU transmission in the second link (where the second TXOP is obtained), is not earlier than the start of PPDU transmission in the first link (where the first TXOP is obtained).
Regarding claim 20,
KO discloses “The device of claim 16, wherein the Non-AP MLD is associated with a Non Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (NSTR) access point multi-link device (AP MLD), the NSTR AP MLD at least comprises a first access point (AP) operating on the primary link and a second AP operating on the non-primary link, and a link where the first AP is located and a link where the second AP is located belong to an NSTR link pair of the NSTR AP MLD” (See [0404] The mandatory link and the optional link of a non-STR soft AP multi-link device may be designated by the non-STR soft AP multi-link device. Specifically, when a multi-link is set up between a non-STR soft AP multi-link device and a non-AP multi-link device, a mandatory link and an optional link may be configured. See Fig. 56, [0462] FIG. 56 shows that a multi-link device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure performs transmission in non-STR link pair, based on a basic link. [0464] In an embodiment of FIG. 56, an AP multi-link device includes a first AP (AP1) and a second AP (AP2). The first AP (AP1) and the second AP (AP2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively. In addition, a non-AP multi-link device includes a first station (STA1) and a second station (STA2). The first station (STA1) and the second station (STA2) operate in the first link (link1) and the second link (link2), respectively).
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.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al. (US 20230262768 A1) in view of Lu et al. (US 20210127420 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 17,
KO discloses claim 2 of “The method of claim 1” and claim 17 of “The device of claim 16”, but does not explicitly disclose the first and second TXOPs overlapping.
However, Lu discloses “wherein a duration of the first TXOP completely overlaps with a duration of the second TXOP in a time domain; or the duration of the first TXOP partially overlaps with the duration of the second TXOP in the time domain” (See [0032] associated non-AP STAs of a multi-link AP may independently contend for medium and obtain TXOP(s) on a pair of links which may be partially overlapped in time. Additionally, the TXOPs obtained by different TXOP holders on the pair of links may be partially overlapped in time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of KO with the teachings of Lu to allow the TXOPs to partially overlap in order to enable efficient utilization of multi-link resources by allowing transmissions to occur concurrently across multiple links, thereby improving channel utilization and throughput (Lu [0031]).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al. (US 20230262768 A1) in view of KIM et al. (US 20240064837 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 19,
KO discloses claim 4 of “The method of claim 1”, and claim 19 of “The device of claim 16”, but does not explicitly disclose a maximum allowable time deviation is preconfigured or agreed on by a protocol.
However, KIM discloses “wherein the maximum allowable time deviation is pre- configured or agreed on by a protocol” (See [0287] the non-primary link TXOP of the non-AP STA MLD may be allowed to end later by a time within a pre-configured time interval than the TXOP of the primary link). Note: “the maximum allowable time deviation” is interpreted according to applicant’s specification [0082] as a maximum duration for the second TXOP to end after the end time of the first TXOP. A maximum duration is a duration within a time interval.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of KO with the teachings of KIM, and the motivation to do so would have been to provide timing tolerance between links while enabling efficient utilization of multi-link resources.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al. (US 20230262768 A1) in view of KIM et al. (US 20230300903 A1).
Regarding claim 9,
KO discloses “The method of claim 1”, but does not explicitly disclose the second Non-AP STA detecting that the first Non-AP STA restarts a backoff process on the primary link, stopping, transmitting to-be- transmitted PPDUs on the non-primary link, and restarting, the backoff process on the non-primary link.
However, KIM discloses “further comprising: in a case that the second Non-AP STA detects that the first Non-AP STA restarts a backoff process on the primary link, stopping, by the second Non-AP STA, transmitting to-be- transmitted PPDUs on the non-primary link, and restarting, by the second Non-AP STA, the backoff process on the non-primary link” (See [0187] the first station (STA 1) obtains a new backoff counter, and starts a channel access procedure again. The second station (STA 2) succeeds in the channel access, and delays transmission because the first station (STA 1) is performing a channel access. Before the first station (STA 1) succeeds in the channel access, the second station (STA 2) detects a channel of the second link (link 2) as being busy. Therefore, the second station (STA 2) obtains a new backoff counter, and starts a channel access procedure again).
Note: KIM discloses that STA2 delays its transmission because STA1 is performing a CA procedure. Since performing the CA procedure includes obtaining a new backoff counter and restarting the CA procedure, STA necessarily detects that STA1 has restarted its backoff process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KO with the teachings of KIM, and the motivation to do so would have been to avoid a mutual collision for a specific channel (KIM [0093]).
Claims 14-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KO et al. (US 20230262768 A1) in view of LOU et al. (US 20160255656 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 21,
KO discloses claim 14 of “The method of claim 1”, and claim 21 of “The device of claim 16”, but does not explicitly disclose a duration setting type used by the first and second non-AP STAs is single protection.
However, LOU discloses “, wherein in a case that a duration setting type used by the first Non-AP STA in the first TXOP is single protection, a duration setting type used by the second Non-AP STA in the second TXOP is also single protection” (See [0184] In the duration field 2110, single protection settings for both TXOP and non-TXOP holders may be included). Note: LOU discloses that the same duration setting type (single protection) is applied to participating stations. Accordingly, when a duration setting type of the first non-AP STA is single protection, the duration setting type of the second non-AP STA is likewise single protection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KO, with the teachings of LOU, and the motivation to do so would have been to provide frame collision protection.
Regarding claim 15 and 22,
KO discloses claim 15 of “The method of claim 1” and claim 22 of “The device of claim 16”, but does not explicitly disclose a duration setting type used by the first and second non-AP STAs is multiple protection.
However, LOU discloses “wherein in a case that a duration setting type used by the first Non-AP STA in the first TXOP is multiple-protection, a duration setting type used by the second Non-AP STA in the second TXOP is single protection or multiple-protection” (See [0185] Alternatively, in the duration field 2110, multiple protection settings for TXOP holder, e.g., the AP, and for non-TXOP holders, e.g., STAs, may be included). Note: LOU discloses that the same duration setting type (multiple protection) is applied to participating stations. Accordingly, when a duration setting type of the first non-AP STA is multiple protection, the duration setting type of the second non-AP STA is likewise multiple protection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of KO, with the teachings of LOU, and the motivation to do so would have been to provide frame collision protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lu et al. (US 20220338253 A1), Fig. 8, [0065].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462