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 Objections
Claims 5-10 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a second AC” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a second access category (AC)”.
Claim 8 recites “a U-APSD” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “an unscheduled-automatic power save delivery (U-APSD)”.
Claim 9 recites “a U-APSD SP” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “an unscheduled-automatic power save delivery (U-APSD) service period (SP)”.
Claim 16 recites “a second AC” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a second access category (AC)”.
Claim 18 recites “a U-APSD SP” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “an unscheduled-automatic power save delivery (U-APSD) service period (SP)”.
Claims 6-7, 10, 17, and 19 are also objected since they are depended on the objected claims set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 16-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein a duration field included in the first frame indicates a time including a time required for transmission and reception of a reception response frame for the first frame and a time required for transmission and reception of a second data frame including information indicating a second AC of a second data unit present in the second device”. It is unclear whether or not “a time required for transmission and reception of a second data frame” is referring to “a duration field included in the first frame”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein a duration field included in the first frame indicates a time including a time required for transmission and reception of a reception response frame for the first frame and a time required for transmission and reception of a second data frame including information indicating a second AC of a second data unit present in the second device”. It is unclear whether or not “including information indicating a second AC of a second data unit present in the second device” is referring to a) “the first frame” or b) “a second data frame”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 6 and 8 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claim 5 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cariou et al. (US 2021/0337475 A1, hereinafter “Cariou”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Cariou discloses a first device [see Fig. 1-2, para. 17, 20, 32, 41, claim 2; a non-AP multi-link device] comprising:
a processor [see Fig. 2, para. 32, 41, claim 2; a processor]; and
a memory configured for storing one or more instructions executable by the processor [see Fig. 2, para. 32, 41, claim 2; a memory configured for storing one or more instructions executable by the processor],
wherein the one or more instructions are executed to perform:
performing a power saving (PS) configuration procedure with a second device [see para. 53, 55, 57-58, 60-64, 70, 92, 116; performing a multi-band power save session with an access point (AP)];
generating a first frame including a first data unit to initiate a transmission operation according to the PS configuration procedure [see para. 120-124; generating a trigger frame including a first data unit (A-MPDU) to initiate a transmission operation according to the multi-band power save session]; and
transmitting the first frame to the second device on a first link of a multi-link configured between the first device and the second device [see para. 120-124, claim 2; transmitting the trigger frame to the AP on a first link of a multi-link configured between the device and the AP (each of the links are set up within one of a plurality of bands)], the first link being mapped to the first data unit [see para. 59, 87, 120, claim 6; map traffic identifiers for the affiliated STAs to all of the links that are set up to allow buffered data to be retrieved from the AP multi-link device for the affiliated STAs over any of the enabled links].
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Cariou discloses wherein the first device includes a plurality of stations (STAs) [see claims 2, 5; the non-AP multi-link device comprising a plurality of affiliated STAs (STA1, STA2)], and a state of a first STA operating on the first link among the plurality of STAs transitions from a doze state to a wake-up state for transmission of the first frame [see para. 120-124, claim 2; a state of a first STA operating on the first link/band among the plurality of affiliated STAs transitions from a doze or sleep state to an awake state for transmission of the trigger frame].
Regarding claim 4, Cariou discloses wherein the first frame is a quality of service (QoS) data frame that serves as an unscheduled-automatic power save delivery (U-APSD) trigger frame [see para. 120-124; the trigger frame is a QoS data frame that serves as a MPU-APSD trigger frame].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Cariou discloses wherein a U-APSD SP for the first link or a U-APSD SP for the multi-link starts at a time of transmitting the first frame [see para. 110, 119-124; a U-APSD SP for the first link or a U-APSD SP for the multi-link starts at a time of transmitting the trigger frame].
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Cariou discloses wherein states of a plurality of STAs included in the first device supporting the multi-link transition from a doze state to a wake-up state at a time at which the U-APSD SP for the multi-link starts [see para. 110, 119-124, claim 2; states of a plurality of affiliated STAs included in the non-AP multi-link device supporting the multi-link transition from a doze state to a wake-up state at a time at which the U-APSD SP for the multi-link starts].
Regarding claim 11, Cariou discloses generating a fourth frame including a third data unit to initiate a transmission operation according to the PS configuration procedure; and transmitting the fourth frame to the second device on a third link of the multi-link, the third link being mapped to the third data unit [see Fig. 12-13, para. 59, 87, 120-130, claim 6; generating and transmitting an Ack frame to the AP on a third link of the multi-link; after setting up multiple links with the AP, all traffic identifiers for the affiliated STAs are mapped to all of the set-up links].
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, 5-8, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou in view of Ahn et al. (US 2019/0028967 A1, hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Cariou discloses performing a mapping procedure of traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping with the second device, wherein the first data unit is mapped to a first TID [see para. 59, 87, 110, 120, 125, claims 2, 6; performing a mapping procedure of TID-to-link mapping with the AP, wherein the first data unit is mapped to a traffic identifier (map traffic identifiers for the affiliated STAs to all of the links that are set up to allow buffered data to be retrieved from the AP multi-link device for the affiliated STAs over any of the enabled links)], and the first link is determined based on a first access category (AC) of the first data unit, a mapping relationship between the first data unit and the first TID, and a relationship of the TID-to-link mapping [see para. 59, 87, 110, 120, 125, 127, claims 2, 6; the AP transmits buffer unit (BU) destined for the STA using a delivery-enabled access category (AC); the STA may designate one or more of its ACs as being trigger-enabled and one or more of its ACs as being delivery enabled; after setting up multiple links with the AP, all traffic identifiers for the affiliated STAs are mapped to all of the set-up links].
Cariou does not explicitly disclose a first access category (AC) of the first data unit is mapped to a first TID, and the first link is determined based on a mapping relationship between the first AC and the first TID.
However, Ahn teaches an access category (AC) of a data unit is mapped to a traffic identifier (TID), and a link is determined based on a mapping relationship between the AC and the TID [see Fig. 30-34, para. 278-286; each TID is mapped to a specific AC].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “an access category (AC) of a data unit is mapped to a traffic identifier (TID), and a link is determined based on a mapping relationship between the AC and the TID”, as taught by Ahn, into the system of Cariou so that it would efficiently transmit the buffered downlink data to a station operating in the PS mode and the WUR mode [see Ahn, para. 278].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Cariou discloses wherein a duration field included in the first frame indicates a time including a time required for transmission and reception of a reception response frame for the first frame and a time required for transmission and reception of a second data frame including information indicating a second data unit present in the second device [see Fig. 12-13, para. 44, 48, 50, 110, 120-125; the trigger frame indicates an unscheduled service period (SP) including a time required for transmission and reception of an ACK frame for the trigger frame and a time required for transmission and reception of a DL data frame (the unscheduled SP begins when the AP receives a trigger frame from a STA, and the unscheduled SP ends after the AP has attempted to transmit at least one buffer unit (BU) destined for the STA using a delivery-enabled access category (AC))].
Cariou does not explicitly disclose “a second AC”.
However, Ahn teaches a second data frame including information indicating a second AC of a second data unit present in the second device [see para. 279-280; a wake-up frame containing AC information, the AC information includes AC bitmap information, and the AC bitmap information may include one bit corresponding to each AC, wherein each value of the bit may indicate whether there is downlink data corresponding to the AC indicated by each bit among the downlink data buffered in the AP].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a second data frame including information indicating a second AC of a second data unit present in the second device”, as taught by Ahn, into the system of Cariou so that it would efficiently transmit the buffered downlink data to a station operating in the PS mode and the WUR mode [see Ahn, para. 278].
Regarding claim 6, Cariou does not explicitly disclose wherein the information is a bitmap, and each bit included in the bitmap indicates presence or absence of a data unit associated with an AC.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the information is a bitmap, and each bit included in the bitmap indicates presence or absence of a data unit associated with an AC [see para. 279-280; a wake-up frame containing AC information, the AC information includes AC bitmap information, and the AC bitmap information may include one bit corresponding to each AC, wherein each value of the bit may indicate whether there is downlink data corresponding to the AC indicated by each bit among the downlink data buffered in the AP].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “wherein the information is a bitmap, and each bit included in the bitmap indicates presence or absence of a data unit associated with an AC”, as taught by Ahn, into the system of Cariou so that it would efficiently transmit the buffered downlink data to a station operating in the PS mode and the WUR mode [see Ahn, para. 278].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Cariou discloses receiving the second frame from the second device on the first link [see Fig. 12, para. 120; receiving the DL data frame (a BU) from the AP on the first link]; and identifying a second link of the multi-link, wherein a state of a second STA operating on the second link among the plurality of STAs included in the first device transitions from a doze state to a wake-up state after a time of receiving the second frame [see para. 104, 114, claims 2, 4, 5; identifying a second link of the multi-link, wherein a state of STA2 operating on the second link among the plurality of affiliated STAs included in the non-AP multi-link device transitions from a doze state to a wake-up state after a time of receiving the DL data frame (a BU)].
Cariou does not explicitly disclose “the second AC”.
However, Ahn teaches a second link of the multi-link, which is mapped to the second AC indicated by the second frame [see Fig. 30-34, para. 278-286; the wake-up frame containing AC information, the AC information includes AC bitmap information, and the AC bitmap information may include one bit corresponding to each AC, wherein each value of the bit may indicate whether there is downlink data corresponding to the AC indicated by each bit among the downlink data buffered in the AP, and each TID is mapped to a specific AC].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a second link of the multi-link, which is mapped to the second AC indicated by the second frame”, as taught by Ahn, into the system of Cariou so that it would efficiently transmit the buffered downlink data to a station operating in the PS mode and the WUR mode [see Ahn, para. 278].
Regarding claim 8, Cariou discloses receiving a third frame including the second data unit from the second device on the second link, wherein a reception operation of the third frame is performed within a U-APSD service period (SP) that starts after the time of receiving the second frame [see para. 110, 120-125, claims 5-6; receiving the BU from the AP on the second link within a U-APSD service period (SP)].
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cariou in view of (Ronny Yongho Kim, et al., IEEE 802.11-20/1402rl, IEEE Standards Association, September 4, 2020, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 12, Cariou discloses wherein the first link and the third link are available links of the multi-link [see para. 59, 87, 120, claims 2, 6; all traffic identifiers are mapped to all of set-up links].
Cariou does not explicitly disclose “busy links” of the multi-link.
However, Kim teaches the first link and the third link are available links excluding busy link(s) of the multi-link [see Slides 3, 8; after a multi-link set up, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links; and a busy period in one link might affect the other links’ availability].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the first link and the third link are available links excluding busy link(s) of the multi-link”, as taught by Kim, into the system of Cariou so that it would provide efficient multi-link power saving [see Kim, Slide 10].
Regarding claim 20, Cariou discloses wherein the one or more instructions are further executed to perform: generating a fourth frame including a third data unit to initiate a transmission operation according to the PS configuration procedure; and transmitting the fourth frame to the second device on a third link of the multi-link, the third link being mapped to the third data unit [see Fig. 12-13, para. 59, 87, 120-130, claim 6; generating and transmitting an Ack frame to the AP on a third link of the multi-link; after setting up multiple links with the AP, all traffic identifiers for the affiliated STAs are mapped to all of the set-up links], wherein the first link and the third link are available links of the multi-link [see para. 59, 87, 120, claims 2, 6; all traffic identifiers are mapped to all of set-up links].
Cariou does not explicitly disclose “busy links” of the multi-link.
However, Kim teaches the first link and the third link are available links excluding busy link(s) of the multi-link [see Slides 3, 8; after a multi-link set up, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links; and a busy period in one link might affect the other links’ availability].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “the first link and the third link are available links excluding busy link(s) of the multi-link”, as taught by Kim, into the system of Cariou so that it would provide efficient multi-link power saving [see Kim, Slide 10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cariou et al. (US 2023/0292245 A1), discloses initial power state after traffic identifier (TID) mapping function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights