CTNF 18/440,222 CTNF 86200 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations “a downlink frame requiring…” should be changed to “the downlink frame requiring…” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis to “a downlink frame” recited in the respective independent claims . Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, sending, by a first AP, a downlink frame requiring a reply to a first STA, wherein the first AP is associated with the first STA; and when the first AP does not receive the reply for the downlink frame from the first STA, sending, by the first AP, a first initial control frame to the first STA , must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (CC34/CC36 Comment Resolution for EMLSR - IEEE 802.11-20/287r2) and Wu (US 2011/0176627) . Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Park teaches a communication method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, comprising: in a process of performing a frame exchange between a first access point (AP) and a first station (STA) in an enhanced multi-link single radio non-access point multi-link device (EMLSR non-AP MLD) (pg. 7-9, the non-AP MLD shall be able to listen on the EMLSR links, by having its affiliated STA(s) corresponding to those links in the awake state), sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring a reply to the first STA, wherein the first AP is associated with the first STA (pg. 7-9, MU-RTS is sent as an initial control frame to the STA). Park is silent as to when the first AP does not receive the reply for the downlink frame from the first STA, sending, by the first AP, a first initial control frame to the first STA 1 . However, it is well known in the art to retransmit the MU-RTS when no reply (e.g. CTS) is received by the AP. Wu (2011/0176627) teaches AP that sends a MU-RTS to the STA and awaits a response, when no response is received, AP transmits a new MU-RTS. Wu at par. [24-28]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to implement the well-known process of retransmitting messages that are considered to not have been received by the destination device due to fluctuation on the wireless channel or collision of packets, as taught by Wu, into the EMLRS non-AP MLD network of Park, in order to make sure the AP is connected to the STB before data transmission can begin. Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, Park teaches wherein the first AP belongs to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) (pg. 7-9, AP MLD). Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14, Park and Wu both teach wherein the sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring a reply to the first STA comprises: sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring an immediate reply 2 to the first STA (PARK at pg. 7-9 and Wu at par. [24-28], a timely reply (e.g. CTS) to AP’s MU-RTS is required). Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, Wu teaches wherein the frame exchange process comprises: sending, by the first AP, a second initial control frame to the first STA (par. [24-28], a new MU-RTS is sent by AP to STA); and receiving, by the first AP, a response frame for the second initial control frame from the first STA (par. [24-29], AP receives a CTS from the STA in response to a new MU-RTS) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (CC34/CC36 Comment Resolution for EMLSR - IEEE 802.11-20/287r2) and Huang (US 2017/0238310) . Regarding claims 1, 6, 11, Park teaches a communication method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, comprising: in a process of performing a frame exchange between a first access point (AP) and a first station (STA) in an enhanced multi-link single radio non-access point multi-link device (EMLSR non-AP MLD) (pg. 7-9, the non-AP MLD shall be able to listen on the EMLSR links, by having its affiliated STA(s) corresponding to those links in the awake state), sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring a reply to the first STA, wherein the first AP is associated with the first STA (pg. 7-9, MU-RTS is sent as an initial control frame to the STA). Park is silent as to when the first AP does not receive the reply for the downlink frame from the first STA, sending, by the first AP, a first initial control frame to the first STA. However, it is well known in the art to retransmit the MU-RTS when no reply (e.g. CTS) is received by the AP. Huang (2017/0238310) teaches AP that sends a MU-RTS to the STA and awaits a response, when no response is received, AP assumes that the transmission of the MU-RTS has failed, and retransmits MU-RTS or a CF-end. Huang at Fig. 4 and par. [39-61]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to implement the well-known process of retransmitting messages that are considered to not have been received by the destination device due to transmission failure, as taught by Huang, into the EMLRS non-AP MLD network of Park, in order to make sure the AP is connected to the STB before data transmission can begin. Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, Park teaches wherein the first AP belongs to an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) (pg. 7-9, AP MLD). Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, Huang teaches wherein the frame exchange process comprises: sending, by the first AP, a second initial control frame to the first STA (Fig. 4 and par. [39-61], AP retransmits MU-RTS or a CF-end to STA); and receiving, by the first AP, a response frame for the second initial control frame from the first STA (Fig. 4 and par. [39-61], AP receives a CTS from the STA in response to a new MU-RTS) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (CC34/CC36 Comment Resolution for EMLSR - IEEE 802.11-20/287r2), Huang (US 2017/0238310), and Park (US 2021/0084711) . Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14, Park and Wu both teach wherein the sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring a reply to the first STA comprises: sending, by the first AP, a downlink frame requiring an immediate reply 3 to the first STA (PARK at pg. 7-9 and Huang at Fig. 4 and par. [39-61], a timely reply (e.g. CTS) to AP’s MU-RTS is required). The combination of Park and Wu is silent as to requiring an immediate reply. However, Park (2021/0084711) teaches receiving a frame in the link that starts a frame sequence and requires an immediate response from the STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD of the link. Park at par. [75]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to implement a frame requiring an immediate reply, as taught by Park, into the EMLRS non-AP MLD network of Park, in order to make sure the AP receives a response from the STB as soon as possible so that data transmission can begin without delay. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG ASANBAYEV whose telephone number is 571-270-7236 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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, LAYLA LAUCHMAN can be reached at (571)272-2418. 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. /OLEG ASANBAYEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 2 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 3 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 4 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 5 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 6 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 7 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/440,222 Page 8 Art Unit: 6221 1 Claim 1 recites “ when the first AP does not receive the reply for the downlink frame from the first STA, sending, by the first AP, a first initial control frame to the first STA” (emphasis added). See Spec. ¶ 394 (the very first sentence of this paragraph uses the word “condition”). The preceding quote is a conditional limitation that applies to the method claims only. This conditional limitation need not be met to render this claim unpatentable. See, In re Schneller , 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804. 2 The expression “immediate reply” is a descriptive term used to “avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter,” quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc. , 66 F.3d 1211, 1217, 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Id. at 1120. For the purpose of examination this expression was interpreted as simply a “reply.” 3 The expression “immediate reply” is a descriptive term used to “avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter,” quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc. , 66 F.3d 1211, 1217, 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Id. at 1120. Although this term is taught by the art, the examiner retains the discretion of interpreting it as simply a “reply.”
Prosecution Insights