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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “determine, based on the power savings requirements and the low latency or high throughput requirements being balanced, whether the non-AP MLD is in a high contention environment or a low contention environment”.
Specification merely discloses in PARA 0096
[0096] the non-AP MLD may determine, based on the power savings requirements and the low latency or high throughput requirements being balanced, whether the non-AP MLD is in a high contention environment or a low contention environment (step 920).
The specification should disclose how the “power saving requirements” and “high throughput requirements” is being balanced to determine the contention environments. Lacking this disclosure would have promoted undue experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 2, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al PG PUB 2025/0374189 in view of Kneckt et al PG PUB 2023/0254732.
Re Claims 1, 8 and 15, KIM et al teaches a communication node (a non-access (AP) multi-link device (MLD)) comprising a transceiver 130, non-transitory CRM configured to form a link with AP MLD wherein a first links operates in a 5GHz and a second link operates in a 2.4GHz [0056]; a processor 110 operably coupled to the STAs, the processor configured to:
determine based on a low-power operation (power saving requirement) of the non-AP MLD to operate in MLSR (a single link mode) using the second link [0064]; figure 3a determine to operate in the EMLRS mode using at least the first and second links [0067].
KIM et al fails to explicitly teach “determine….high contention…to operate in the EMLSR mode” and “determine…low contention… to operate in the STR mode” as claimed.
However, Kneckt et al teaches in figure 32, multi-link operations (STR/eMLSR) is based on load level thresholds [0140] and figure 33 teaches MLD load parameters which is based on the number of associated MLDs in the AP MLD [0093 0121] wherein based on the load parameters a low or high contention environment can be determined.
By combining the teachings, the load information can be used in the operating modes to improve throughput and QoS using the first and second links [0095] wherein the transceivers configured to communicate with the Aps of the AP MLD according to the determined mode of operation.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the load information to further determine the contention environment in determining the operating mode to improve throughput and QoS.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 9 and 16, Kneckt et al teaches that AP and non-AP STAs may improve latency [0086]. Accordingly, the processor in KIM et al determine the low latency requirements of the traffic based on an application that generates the traffic.
Re Claims 7, 14, it is apparent that applications are running in the non-AP MLD to support determining of the power saving requirements.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al PG PUB 2025/0374189 in view of Kneckt et al PG PUB 2023/0254732 as applied to claims 1 above and further in view of Cariou et al PG PUB 2021/0329500.
Re Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18, KIM et al in view of Kneckt et al teaches the processor to determine the low latency or high throughput requirements of the traffic. KIM et al in view of Kneckt et al fails to explicitly teach “SCS request frame that includes a QoS characteristics element that includes at least one parameter…” transmits the SCS request to the corresponding AP of the AP MLD.
However, Carious et al teaches establishing a QoS setup using SCS, MSCS to negotiate a set of parameters that describes a required latency of the traffic [0039].
By combining the teachings, the corresponding AP of the AP MLD can transmit, using the transceiver in KIM et al, the SCS/MSCS to establish a QoS traffic stream.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have transmitted the SCS/MSCS request to establish the QoS traffic stream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have combined the teachings.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al PG PUB 2025/0374189 in view of Kneckt et al PG PUB 2023/0254732 as applied to Claims 1 above and further in view of BHATTACHARYA et al PG PUB 2021/0051664.
Re Claims 5, 12 and 19, Kneckt et al teaches the MDL load parameter total number affiliated APs in AP MLD associated with a current BSS load [0116]. KIM et al in view of Kneckt et al fails to explicitly teach “determine a number of OBSS…of the non-AP MLD” to determine the contention environment.
However, BHATTACHARYA et al based on the number on OBSS in a neighborhood can indicate the number of devices sharing the wireless medium and medium access contention level [0017 0054].
By combining the teachings, the number of OBSS can be used to have determined the contention level to be adaptive to the different operating modes in Kneckt et al.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined the number of OBSS APs to determined the contention level to be adaptive to the different operating modes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 6, 13 and 20, BHATTACHARYA et al teaches the AP transmits a beacon which includes BSSID identifying the APs from AP MLD [0058].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights