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 9 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the claims recite “wherein the NSTR link pair further comprises one or more links in addition to the first link and the second link”. A link pair normally has exactly two links and the NSTR link pair already consists of the first and second links. How can the link pair further comprise one or more links in addition to the first and second links? Hence, the claims are nonsensical.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent US12219637. Please see the direct claim comparison below.
US Patent 12219637 claim 1
Instant application, claim 1
A method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication device, the method comprising:
A method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication device, the method comprising:
receiving first data over a channel of a first link of the plurality of links;
determining whether a channel of a second link of the plurality of links is idle in a case that no data is received over the channel of the second link and the first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair; and
receiving first data over a channel of a first link of the plurality of links;
determining whether a channel of a second link of the plurality of links is idle in a case that no data is received over the channel of the second link and the first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair; and
transmitting a feedback frame over the channel of the first link, wherein the feedback frame comprises a first field indicating whether the channel of the second link is idle, wherein determining whether the channel of the second link is idle comprises: ….
transmitting a feedback frame over the channel of the first link, wherein the feedback frame comprises a first field indicating whether the channel of the second link is idle.
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 1-5, 7, 9-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230379999) in view of Xia (US 20220312506).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication device (figs. 1-2, [0009][0268], a multi-link device), the method comprising:
receiving first data over a channel of a first link of the plurality of links ([0024], receiving an initial control frame which initiates the frame exchange in the first link ; [0224][0228]) ;
determining whether a channel of a second link of the plurality of links is idle in a case that no data is received over the channel of the second link ([0103-04][0186][0193][0331], the station may sense the channel state, when it is sensed that whether the channel is idle or not; the corresponding link is detected to be idle for a predetermined time ; Abstract, ¶9-11, 17, 23-25, 158-159 ; figs. 9-10) and the first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair;
transmitting a feedback frame over the channel of the first link, wherein the feedback frame comprises a first field indicating whether the channel of the second link is idle ([0193][0217][0238-239][[0359-363], transmits, to the beam former, channel state information (CSI), where the channel state can be idle or busy, indicated by the signaling field)
Kim does not explicitly disclose the first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair.
Xia discloses the first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair in a method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication devices for the purpose of achieving the synchronized channel access on different links of a NSTR link pair for a shared TXOP holder MLD (Xia, [0009] [0106], stations affiliated with the same NSTR MLD on different links of a NSTR link pair perform synchronized transmission). Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of first link and the second link belong to a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair a method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication devices for the purpose of achieving the synchronized channel access on different links of a NSTR link pair for a shared TXOP holder MLD, as taught by Xia in the method for channel state feedback implemented in a first communication device, the first communication device being configured with a plurality of links for communicating with a second communication device of Kim, in order to achieve more rapid (faster) channel access to initiate shared TXOP among MLDs.
Claims 11, 12, 18, 20 are rejecte4d similarly noting that Kim discloses a receiver/transmitter and circuit (Kim, figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the feedback frame is based on a feedback frame for notifying whether the first data is received successfully (Kim, [0332], an ACK normally indicates the data is received successfully).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving second data over the channel of the second link, wherein the second data is transmitted by the second communication device synchronously with the first data transmission over the channel of the first link in response to the first field indicating the channel of the second link is idle (Kim, figs. 22, 23, .¶50, 234-236, 239-243; Xia, [0106], stations affiliated with the same NSTR MLD on different links of a NSTR link pair perform synchronized transmission).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first data is transmitted by the second communication device in a transmission opportunity (TXOP) in response to the first link obtaining the TXOP without waiting idleness of the channel of the second link (Kim, Abstract, ¶9, 17, 23).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first field includes a bitmap for indicating whether channels of links of the NSTR link pair are idle, and wherein each bit of the bitmap corresponds to one of the links (Kim, ¶124, 397, fig. 49).
Regarding claim 7, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the channel of the second link is idle comprises: detecting a medium activity of the channel of the second link after receiving the first data over the channel of the first link; and determining the channel of the second link to be idle in response to that the medium activity of the channel of the second link is not detected for a duration of a predefined number of backoff slots (Kim, ¶103-105, 160-162, 176-178, 0193, 0331, the station may sense the channel state, when it is sensed that whether the channel is idle or not; the corresponding link is detected to be idle for a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 9, 18, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the NSTR link pair further comprises one or more links in addition to the first link and the second link, the method further comprising: determining whether channels of the one or more links are idle in a case that no data is received over the channels of the one or more links, wherein the first field further indicates whether the channels of the one or more links are idle (Kim, [0006][0022-23][0193][0223], the station may sense the channel state, when it is sensed that whether the channel is idle or not; the corresponding link is detected to be idle for a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 10, 19, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication device is an access point (AP) and the second communication device is a station (STA), or the first communication device is the STA and the second communication device is the AP, or both the first communication device and the second communication device are the APs, or both the first communication device and the second communication device are the STAs (Kim, Abstract, figs. 1-2, STAs, APs; [0223])
Claims 6, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xia further in view of Kim2 (US 20230413343).
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Xia disclose the method of claim 2,
Kim and Xia do not explicitly disclose the feedback frame for notifying whether the first data is received successfully is a BlockAck frame, and wherein the feedback frame further comprises a second field indicating whether the feedback frame comprises the first field, the second field occupying a bit of a reserved field in the BlockAck frame.
Kim2 discloses the feedback frame for notifying whether the first data is received successfully is a BlockAck frame, and wherein the feedback frame further comprises a second field indicating whether the feedback frame comprises the first field, the second field occupying a bit of a reserved field in the BlockAck frame (Kim2, fig. 26, [0135][0168] [0178][0183], may send an Ack frame or a BlockAck frame 2132 in response to frame 2131).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of multilink communications system as given by Kim with the teachings of block acknowledgement feedback system given by Kim2. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide feedback by using block acknowledgement.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected similarly as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474