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 .
This office action is in response to communications filed on 01/16/2026.
Claims 1-30 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 9-16, 19-26, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (US 11665760 B2) (hereinafter “Ho”) in view of Ryu et al (US 20240163922 A1) (hereinafter “Ryu”).
Regarding claim 1, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and para. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations);
and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively configured to (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations), when executing the code, cause the first wireless communication device to:
receive a first management message comprising a first stream identifier associated with a second wireless communication device (see Fig. 7 (702), col. 11 lines 65-67, col. 12 lines 1-3 discloses the ML AP (first device) obtains a first SSID associated with single link communication, in some implementations a first SSID value may be obtained from a user through a suitable interface);
transmit a second management message to an access point, the second management message comprising a second stream identifier and an identifier of the second wireless communication device based at least in part on the first management message (see Fig.7 (706), col. 12, lines 10-15 discloses the ML AP (first device) transmits one or more frames carrying first and second SSID to one or more STAs (second devices) , in some implementations the first SSID and the second SSID may be included in one information element, including MLO fields of the management frame).
Ho fails to disclose receive a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity, the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device, wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device.
However, Ryu teaches receive a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity (see Fig. 8, para. [0074]-[0075] discloses transmits announcement of low latency traffic transmissions, the announcement informs that any of the non-APs STA may have the traffic preempted is TXOP overlaps in time), the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device (see para. [0030] discloses frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is QoS null frame), wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device (see para. [0027] discloses AP schedules a set of low latency traffic stream windows with a non-AP STA and pre-empt a TXOP if a stream overlaps).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TXOP as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 2, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device, wherein the third wireless communication device is co-located with the first wireless communication device (see Fig. 4 discloses STA3 co-located with first wireless device).
Regarding claim 3, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the first wireless communication device (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations) to:
generate the second stream identifier such that the second stream identifier corresponds to the first stream identifier (see col. 2, lines 19-29 discloses in some implementations the first and second SSID may be the same value; discloses in some implementations the first SSID and second ID may be associated with the same passphrase),
wherein a quantity of bits of the second stream identifier is smaller than a total quantity of bits of the first stream identifier and the identifier of the second wireless communication device (see Fig. 6, col. 11, lines 50-54 discloses the ML SSID may be any feasible size).
Regarding claim 4, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device wherein the first control message comprises the second stream identifier (see para. 2 lines 6-8, discloses second SSID may be carried in a MLO multi-link operation field of the management frame).
Regarding claim 5, Ho discloses a first wireless communication wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the first wireless communication device (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and para. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations) to:
Ho fails to disclose modifying at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message,
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter.
However, Ryu teaches modify at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message (see para [0084]-[0085] discloses the AP can schedule low latency traffic from the STA using preemption operation capability bit set to 1), wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter (see para. [0083] discloses bit set to 1 in UHR capabilities activates TXOP preemption).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include the parameter as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 9, Ho fails to disclose the first wireless communication device wherein the second stream identifier comprises a stream classification service (SCS) identifier.
However, Ryu teaches the first wireless communication device wherein the second stream identifier comprises a stream classification service (SCS) identifier (see para. [0088] discloses request frame can be SCS request frame including at least indication of preemption operation, SCSID, the TID, if is UL or DL).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 10, Ho fails to disclose the first wireless communication device wherein the second stream identifier comprises a traffic identifier (TID).
However, Ryu teaches the first wireless communication device wherein the second stream identifier comprises a traffic identifier (TID) (see para. [0089] discloses the response frame can be SCS response frame including at least one of indication of preemption operation, SCSID, TID).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TID as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 11, Ho fails to clearly disclose a first wireless communication device wherein the shared transmission opportunity is associated with peer-to-peer communication between the first wireless communication device, the second wireless communication device, the third wireless communication device, or any combination thereof.
However, Ryu teaches a first wireless communication device wherein the shared transmission opportunity is associated with peer-to-peer communication between the first wireless communication device, the second wireless communication device, the third wireless communication device, or any combination thereof (see Fig. 5A discloses TXOP shared between AP and STA1 and STA2).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TXOP (transmission opportunity) as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 12, Ho discloses a method for wireless communication at a first wireless communication device, comprising:
receiving a first management message comprising a first stream identifier associated with a second wireless communication device (see Fig. 7 (702), col. 11 lines 65-67, col. 12 lines 1-3 discloses the ML AP (first device) obtains a first SSID associated with single link communication, in some implementations a first SSID value may be obtained from a user through a suitable interface);
transmitting a second management message to an access point, the second management message comprising a second stream identifier and an identifier of the second wireless communication device based at least in part on the first management message (see Fig.7 (706), col. 12, lines 10-15 discloses the ML AP (first device) transmits one or more frames carrying first and second SSID to one or more STAs (second devices) , in some implementations the first SSID and the second SSID may be included in one information element, including MLO fields of the management frame).
Ho fails to disclose receiving a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity, the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device, wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device.
However, Ryu teaches receiving a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity (see Fig. 8, para. [0074]-[0075] discloses transmits announcement of low latency traffic transmissions, the announcement informs that any of the non-APs STA may have the traffic preempted is TXOP overlaps in time), the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device (see para. [0030] discloses frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is QoS null frame), wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device (see para. [0027] discloses AP schedules a set of low latency traffic stream windows with a non-AP STA and pre-empt a TXOP if a stream overlaps).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TXOP as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 13, Ho discloses a method wherein the third wireless communication device is co-located with the first wireless communication device (see Fig. 4 discloses STA3 co-located with first wireless device).
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 12, further comprising: generating the second stream identifier such that the second stream identifier corresponds to the first stream identifier (see col. 2, lines 19-29 discloses in some implementations the first and second SSID may be the same value; discloses in some implementations the first SSID and second ID may be associated with the same passphrase),
wherein a quantity of bits of the second stream identifier is smaller than a total quantity of bits of the first stream identifier and the identifier of the second wireless communication device (see Fig. 6, col. 11, lines 50-54 discloses the ML SSID may be any feasible size).
Regarding claim 15, Ho discloses a method wherein the first control message comprises the second stream identifier (see para. 2 lines 6-8, discloses second SSID may be carried in a MLO multi-link operation field of the management frame).
Regarding claim 16, Ho fails to disclose a method further comprising: modifying at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message,
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter.
However, Ryu teaches modifying at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message (see para [0084]-[0085] discloses the AP can schedule low latency traffic from the STA using preemption operation capability bit set to 1),
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter (see para. [0083] discloses bit set to 1 in UHR capabilities activates TXOP preemption).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include the parameter as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 19, Ho fails to disclose a method wherein: the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message, and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message.
However, Ryu teaches the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message, and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message (see para. [0088] discloses request frame can be SCS request frame including at least indication of preemption operation, SCSID, the TID, if is UL or DL).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 20, Ho fails to disclose a method wherein the second stream identifier comprises a stream classification service (SCS) identifier.
However, Ryu teaches a method wherein the second stream identifier comprises a stream classification service (SCS) identifier (see para. [0088] discloses request frame can be SCS request frame including at least indication of preemption operation, SCSID, the TID, if is UL or DL).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 21, Ho fails to disclose a method wherein the second stream identifier comprises a traffic identifier (TID).
However, Ryu teaches a method wherein the second stream identifier comprises a traffic identifier (TID) (see para. [0089] discloses the response frame can be SCS response frame including at least one of indication of preemption operation, SCSID, TID).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 22, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device for wireless communication (see Fig. 3), comprising:
processing circuitry associated with one or more memory devices and configured to cause the first wireless communication device ((see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations) to:
receive a first management message comprising a first stream identifier associated with a second wireless communication device (see Fig. 7 (702), col. 11 lines 65-67, col. 12 lines 1-3 discloses the ML AP (first device) obtains a first SSID associated with single link communication, in some implementations a first SSID value may be obtained from a user through a suitable interface);
transmit a second management message to an access point, the second management message comprising a second stream identifier and an identifier of the second wireless communication device based at least in part on the first management message (see Fig.7 (706), col. 12, lines 10-15 discloses the ML AP (first device) transmits one or more frames carrying first and second SSID to one or more STAs (second devices) , in some implementations the first SSID and the second SSID may be included in one information element, including MLO fields of the management frame).
Ho fails to disclose receive a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity, the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device, wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device.
However, Ryu teaches receive a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity (see Fig. 8, para. [0074]-[0075] discloses transmits announcement of low latency traffic transmissions, the announcement informs that any of the non-APs STA may have the traffic preempted is TXOP overlaps in time), the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device (see para. [0030] discloses frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is QoS null frame), wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device (see para. [0027] discloses AP schedules a set of low latency traffic stream windows with a non-AP STA and pre-empt a TXOP if a stream overlaps).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TXOP as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 23, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device wherein the third wireless communication device is co-located with the first wireless communication device see Fig. 4 discloses STA3 co-located with first wireless device).
Regarding claim 24, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations) to:
generate the second stream identifier such that the second stream identifier corresponds to the first stream identifier (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations), wherein a quantity of bits of the second stream identifier is smaller than a total quantity of bits of the first stream identifier and the identifier of the second wireless communication device (see Fig. 6, col. 11, lines 50-54 discloses the ML SSID may be any feasible size).
Regarding claim 25, Ho discloses a first wireless communication wherein the first control message comprises the second stream identifier (see para. 2 lines 6-8, discloses second SSID may be carried in a MLO multi-link operation field of the management frame).
Regarding claim 26, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: modify at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message,
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter.
Ho fails to disclose causing to modify at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message,
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter.
However, Ryu teaches modify at least one parameter associated with the set of quality of service parameters for the second wireless communication device based at least in part on a delay associated with receiving the first control message (see para [0084]-[0085] discloses the AP can schedule low latency traffic from the STA using preemption operation capability bit set to 1),
wherein the one or more parameters of the first control message are based at least in part on modifying the at least one parameter (see para. [0083] discloses bit set to 1 in UHR capabilities activates TXOP preemption).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include the parameter as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving latency.
Regarding claim 30, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device for wireless communication ((see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and para. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations), comprising:
means for receiving a first management message comprising a first stream identifier associated with a second wireless communication device ((see Fig. 7 (702), col. 11 lines 65-67, col. 12 lines 1-3 discloses the ML AP (first device) obtains a first SSID associated with single link communication, in some implementations a first SSID value may be obtained from a user through a suitable interface);
means for transmitting a second management message to an access point, the second management message comprising a second stream identifier and an identifier of the second wireless communication device based at least in part on the first management message (see Fig.7 (706), col. 12, lines 10-15 discloses the ML AP (first device) transmits one or more frames carrying first and second SSID to one or more STAs (second devices) , in some implementations the first SSID and the second SSID may be included in one information element, including MLO fields of the management frame).
Ho fails to disclose means for receiving a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity, the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device, wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device.
However, Ryu teaches means for receiving a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity (see Fig. 8, para. [0074]-[0075] discloses transmits announcement of low latency traffic transmissions, the announcement informs that any of the non-APs STA may have the traffic preempted is TXOP overlaps in time), the first control message comprising one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality of service parameters of the second wireless communication device (see para. [0030] discloses frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is QoS null frame), wherein the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device (see para. [0030] discloses frame indicating TXOP preemption activation is QoS null frame).
Ho and Ryu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication method and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include TXOP as described by Ryu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Claims 6. 8, 17, 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (US 11665760 B2) (hereinafter “Ho”) in view of Ryu et al (US 20240163922 A1) (hereinafter “Ryu”) as per claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Xin et al (US 20230058871 A1) (hereinafter Xin) (IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations).
Ho fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to:
receive a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth wireless communication device;
determine a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier; and
transmit a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device.
However, Xin teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to:
receive a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth third wireless communication device see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).;
determine a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).; and
transmit a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).
Ho and Xin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Xin.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 8, Ho discloses a first Ho fails to disclose a first wireless communication device (see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9 lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations).
Ho fails to disclose a wherein: the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message, and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message.
However, Xin teaches a first wireless communication device wherein: the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message, and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message (see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1, in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1).
Ho and Xin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Xin.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 17, Ho fails to disclose a method further comprising: receiving a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth wireless communication device;
determining a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier; and
transmitting a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).
However, Xin teaches a method further comprising: receiving a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth wireless communication device;
determining a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ); and
transmitting a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).
Ho and Xin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Xin.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 27, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device ((see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations).
Ho fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to:
receive a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth wireless communication device;
determine a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier;
and transmit a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device.
However, Xin teaches Ho fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to:
receive a third management message comprising the first stream identifier associated with a fourth wireless communication device (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 );
determine a third stream identifier as an identifier for the fourth wireless communication device, wherein the first stream identifier is different than the third stream identifier (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 );
and transmit a fourth management message to the access point, the fourth management message comprising the third stream identifier and an identifier of the fourth wireless communication device (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1; in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1; the SCSID is set to 3, between MLD3 and MLD1 ).
Ho and Xin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Xin.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Regarding claim 29, Ho discloses a first wireless communication device ((see Fig. 3, col. 8, lines 17-24; 64-67 and col. 9, lines 1-3 discloses AP with transceiver, processor, memory interfaces and antennas, the memory may store computer-readable instructions to perform the operations).
Ho fails to disclose wherein: the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message, and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message.
However, Xin teaches wherein: the first management message comprises a first stream classification service message (see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1, in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1), and the second management message comprise a second stream classification service (SCS) message (see Fig. 31 para. [0203]-[0204] discloses SCSID is set to 1 between STA2 and AP1, in SCS2 the SCSID is set to 2, between MLD2 and MLD1).
Ho and Xin are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include SCS as described by Xin.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving stream identification.
Claims 7, 18, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al (US 11665760 B2) (hereinafter “Ho”) in view of Ryu et al (US 20240163922 A1) (hereinafter “Ryu”) as applied to claims 1, 12 and 22 above and further in view of Rinne et al (US 20120087279 A1) (hereinafter “Rinne”).
Regarding claim 7, Ho fails to disclose a first wireless communication device wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame.
However, Rinne teaches a first wireless communication device wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame (see para. [0035] discloses encapsulation in control plane messages, where a first message is included within a second message, essentially the second message carries the first message).
Ho and Rinne are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include encapsulated message as described by Rinne.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving messaging overhead.
Regarding claim 18, Ho fails to disclose a method wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame.
However, Rinne teaches a method wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame see para. [0035] discloses encapsulation in control plane messages, where a first message is included within a second message, essentially the second message carries the first message).
Ho and Rinne are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include encapsulated message as described by Rinne.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving messaging overhead.
Regarding claim 28, Ho fails to disclose a first wireless communication device wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame.
However, Rinne teaches a first wireless communication device wherein the first management message and the second management message are associated with a management encapsulation frame (see para. [0035] discloses encapsulation in control plane messages, where a first message is included within a second message, essentially the second message carries the first message).
Ho and Rinne are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods and apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ho to include encapsulated message as described by Rinne.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving messaging overhead.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive under the amended claim. The rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Ryu fails to disclose “a first control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity”. Specifically, applicant argues that that pre-empted traffic is different from shared transmission opportunity. See remarks pages 10-11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a frame informing STAs of shared transmission can be interpreted as control message associated with a shared transmission opportunity, since the transmission opportunity could be used for one STA or other depending on the condition of preemption, this resource is shared by the two devices, the claim does not indicate that the sharing has to be performed on the same time.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Ryu fails to disclose “one or more parameters that satisfy a set of quality-of-service parameters of the second wireless communication device”. Specifically, applicant argues that that Ryu provides a QoS null frame to serve as container for a preemption activation only. See remarks page 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, pre-empted traffic activates data session, call or bandwidth resources that are terminated or interrupt or temporarily reassigned to accommodate a higher priority traffic (Quality of Service). The QoS null frame carries the information that satisfies the condition to accommodate the higher priority traffic, including an UHR variant HT control field (see Ryu para [0030]).
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Ryu fails to teach or suggest “the first control message enables the shared transmission opportunity for the second wireless communication device and a third wireless communication device”. Specifically, applicant argues that Ryu fails to discuss any sharing of TXOPs between wireless devices, and enabling the sharing transmission opportunity. See remarks page 11-12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the transmission opportunity could be used for one STA or other STA depending on the condition of preemption, this resource is shared by the devices, the claim does not indicate that the sharing has to be performed on the same time.
With respect to dependent claims 2-11, 13-21, and 23-29, Applicant argues allowability based on independent claims 1, 12 and 22. See remarks page 12.
Examiner respectfully disagrees due to the reason presented above for independent claims 1, that may also be applied to 12 and 22.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS whose telephone number is (571)-272-5710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha, can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights