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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objection to claims 7, 14, and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 8-9, 11-14, and 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez-Raventos (“Multi-Link Operation in IEEE 802.11be WLANs”, IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol. 29, Issue 4, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Ryu (US 20240422674 A1, see also 63/289825).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez-Raventos discloses a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) [fig. 1 “non-AP MLD”] comprising:
stations (STAs) [fig. 3 “STA MLD”] each comprising a transceiver (802.11be WLANs [fig. 3 “STA MLD” (inherent), fig. 4, tbl. 1]) configured to form a link [fig. 3] with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD [fig. 3 “AP MLD”]; and
a processor operably coupled to the STAs [fig. 3 “STA MLD” (inherent)], the processor configured to generate or receive a first message for a broadcast target wake time (TWT) negotiation (Receive [fig. 3 “TWT Negotiation”]), wherein the first message indicates that the broadcast TWT negotiation is for a broadcast TWT schedule on at least one first link of the links (Wake scheduling [fig. 3 “TWT Element Link 1&2, Link 3”, pg. 97 col. 2 last par.]),
wherein the transceiver of a first of the STAs is further configured to transmit or receive the first message to or from the AP MLD over a second of the links (TWT message applies to links 1-3 (i.e., links 2-3 are “on at least one first link” above) and is received on link 1 (i.e., over a second link) [fig. 3b]).
Although Lopez-Raventos discloses TWT, as discussed above, Lopez-Raventos does not explicitly disclose as indicated by a Link ID Bitmap subfield of the first message. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Ryu.
In the same field of endeavor, Ryu discloses:
as indicated by a Link ID Bitmap subfield of the first [par. 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopez-Raventos with Ryu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of managing activity in the BSS by scheduling STAs to reduce contention [Ryu par. 0052].
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lopez-Raventos discloses interpreting (i.e., after receiving).
Regarding claim 15, it substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lopez-Raventos further discloses an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) [fig. 1 “AP MLD”], comprising: APs [fig. 3 “AP MLD”] each comprising a transceiver (802.11be WLANs [fig. 3 “AP MLD” (inherent), fig. 4, tbl. 1]) configured to form a link with a corresponding station (STA) [fig. 3] of a non-AP MLD [fig. 3 “STA MLD”]; and a processor operably coupled to the APs [fig. 3 “AP MLD” (inherent)], where the AP generates and transmits the message [fig. 3].
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lopez-Raventos further discloses wherein:
the first message includes a Link ID bitmap that is associated with a broadcast TWT parameter set that corresponds to the broadcast TWT schedule under negotiation [fig. 3 “Link 1&2, Link 3”], and
an entry in the Link ID bitmap corresponding to each of the first links is set to indicate that the broadcast TWT negotiation is for the broadcast TWT schedule on the first links (The link numbers correspond to the links [fig. 3]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lopez-Raventos further discloses wherein:
the first message includes broadcast TWT parameter sets that each correspond to a different broadcast TWT schedule under negotiation (Single message corresponds to different TWT schedules [fig. 3b, pg. 97 col. 2 – 98 col. 1), and
the first message includes an indication that either:
a respective Link ID bitmap associated with each of the broadcast TWT parameter sets is included in the first message [fig. 3b, pg. 98 col. 1]; or
no Link ID bitmaps associated with any of the broadcast TWT parameter sets are included in the first message (Only one link element is needed (i.e., no bitmaps associated) [pg. 98 col. 1]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lopez-Raventos further discloses:
wherein the indication that no Link ID bitmaps are included in the first message is an indication that all of the different broadcast TWT schedules are under negotiation for the second link (All schedules apply to all links (i.e., including second link) [pg. 98 col. 1]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lopez-Raventos further discloses:
wherein the first links have not been disabled for the non-AP MLD through traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping (No links are disabled [fig. 3b, pg. 97 col. 2]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Lopez-Raventos further discloses wherein:
the broadcast TWT negotiation is for a restricted TWT schedule [fig. 3b, pg. 97-98],
the first message includes an indication of uplink (UL) TIDs and downlink (DL) TIDs, for which UL traffic and DL traffic transmissions [pg. 98 col. 2 ln. 28-35], respectively, will be permitted according to the restricted TWT schedule [fig. 3b, pg. 97-98], and
the indicated UL traffic identifiers (TIDs) and DL TIDs are mapped to the first links through TID-to-link mapping [pg. 98 col. 2 ln. 28-35].
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez-Raventos and Ryu as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Nurchis (“Target Wake Time Scheduled Access in IEEE 802.11ax WLANs”, IEEE Wireless Communications, Vol. 26, Issue 2, cited by Applicant of Record).
Although Lopez-Raventos discloses wherein: the processor is further configured to receive or generate a … message for the broadcast TWT negotiation … includes a … Link ID bitmap in a … broadcast TWT parameter set that corresponds to the broadcast TWT schedule under negotiation, an entry in the … Link ID bitmap corresponding to each of the first links is set, and the transceiver of the first STA is further configured to receive or transmit the … message from or to the AP MLD over the … link, as discussed above, Lopez-Raventos and Ryu do not explicitly disclose a second message … as a response to the first message, the second message includes a second … second … second message from or to the AP MLD over the second link. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Nurchis.
In the same field of endeavor, Nurchis discloses:
a second message … as a response to the first message, the second message includes a second … second … second message from or to the AP MLD over the second link (Explicit requires specification of TWT parameters (i.e., negotiation) before each session (i.e., other messages) or implicit allowing future messages (i.e., other messages) [fig. 2, pg. 143 col. 2 - 144 col. 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lopez-Raventos and Ryu with Nurchis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of providing a simple but effective mechanism to schedule transmissions in time [Nurchis pg. 142 Abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US 20230128915 A1) discloses TWT elements that comprise link indicator/identifier (ID) bitmap subfields (see also 63/270125).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465