DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 18/530,883 filed on December 6th, 2023.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 03/03/2026, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claim 12 is canceled.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 - 20 are pending.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 are rejected.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objection: Claims 6 and 16 were objected to because of informalities. The appropriate corrections have been made in claims 6 and 16. The claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): Claims 6 and 16 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b). The appropriate corrections have been made in claims 6 and 16. The claim rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7 – 11 of the Remarks, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, 11, and 19, and dependent claims 2 – 8, 10, 13 – 18, and 20, with the exception of newly canceled claim 12, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 12/04/2025, particularly as regards the amended limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang et al. [US 20210112615 A1] hereinafter Huang 1. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
It should be noted that the scope of the previous claim 1 has been changed with the current amendment. The amended claim limitation recites “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link”. Adding the third reception unit that was note previously claimed makes the claim narrower than was previously claimed. Therefore, this amendment changes the scope of the limitation as recited in amended claim 1, and it necessitates a new ground(s) of rejection.
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are rejected specifically in view of the limitation “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link” in lines 12 – 13 of claim 1. The claim as currently set forth requires not just a first and a second reception unit, but requires a third reception unit also that receives a third frame, wherein the frame is not received via a third link, but rather the third frame is received via the second link.
However, as best understood according to the written specification and drawings of the present application, there is no mention or description of a third reception unit receiving a third frame via the second link.
Per MPEP 2163, “newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” (emphasis added). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2163 (citing to Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas- Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the amended limitation “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link” is not supported by the specification.
[Note: If Applicant can identify the amended limitation “…a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link…” in the spec, Examiner requests the Applicant to identify the exact location. If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already expressly/implicitly/inherently discloses the corresponding acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by “stating on the record what corresponding acts, which are expressly/implicitly/inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function”].
Claims 9, 11, and 19 recite parallel limitations, and these are rejected for the same reasoning.
The rest of the dependent claims are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
The specification fails to provide the support for the following amended claim limitation: “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link”.
Applicant has not stated that the support(s) for the amended limitation can be found in any specific paragraphs in the specification. However, nowhere in the specification discloses the amended limitation.
The written disclosure fails to define “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link” in claims 1, 9, 11, and 19. Accordingly, the limitation is not supported by the specification.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret as best understood.
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.
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 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the second link” in Line 12 – 13. Claims 9, 11, and 19 all have similar amendments and are rejected similarly. In an effort to understand the amended claim limitations as recited in claim 1, the examiner was unable to find corresponding paragraphs nor figures describing the invention as claimed in the amended limitation within the originally filed disclosure. It is unclear how the third reception unit (which could be a component or entity of its own) is receiving a third frame that is transmitted from the other communication device, wherein, this transmission is received via the second link, and not via a third link. Referring to paragraph 30 of the disclosure, it reads:
“The communication device 102 and the communication device 103 may establish a plurality of links in different frequency bands in the multi-link communication. For example, the communication device 102 and the communication device 103 may establish a third link in 6 GHz band in addition to the first link 104 in 2.4 GHz band and the second link 105 in 5 GHz band”.
This shows that even when there are a plurality of links, each link is independent of the other, and communications between device 102 and device 103 are established via independent links, i.e., link 1 (on 2.4 GHz), link 2 (on 5 GHz), or link 3 (on 6 GHz). Continuing on with the same paragraph 30, even if the plurality of links were established within the same frequency band, each link of the plurality of links all have their independent channels within the same frequency band. No two connections within the communication devices 102 and 103 share a link. Therefore, according to the disclosure of this instant application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it within reason to understand that if there is a third reception unit that is to be connected to the other communication device, the third reception unit will have its own independent link, and not receive communication through the second link as claimed in the amended limitation.
For the purposes of examination the amended limitation will be understood as “a third reception unit configured to perform reception processing of a third frame transmitted from the other communication device via the third link”.
Claims 2 – 8, 10, 13 – 18, and 20 are also rejected since they depend upon rejected base claims 1, 9, 11, and 19.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation recites “wherein the first frame and the second frame is a beacon frame” in Line 2 of each claim respectively. Instead of the limitation using the word “is” to describe more than one item, it should be changed to reflect the plural nature of the frames discussed. A suggestion would be to use “are”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 – 11 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. [US 20210112615 A1] hereinafter Huang-2615 and further in view of Huang et al. [US 20240031777 A1] hereinafter Huang-1777.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huang-2615 teaches a communication device as a station (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link Non-AP logical entity or Non-AP MLD), comprising:
an establishment unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of communications circuitry 602 comprised in Non-AP STA1) configured to establish a first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1) and a second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2) with another communication device (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link AP logical entity or AP MLD), the first link using a first frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1 operating on 2.4 GHz), the second link using a second frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2 operating on 5 GHz);
a first reception unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in Non-AP STA1) configured to receive a frame including predetermined information transmitted from the other communication device via the first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 1);
a second reception unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in Non-AP STA2) configured to receive a frame including predetermined information transmitted from the other communication device via the second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 2);
a third reception unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in Non-AP STA3) configured to perform reception processing of a frame transmitted from the other communication device via the third link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 3); and
wherein the third reception unit is configured not to perform reception processing of the frame in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame received by the first reception unit and the predetermined information included in the second frame received by the second reception unit are a same value (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 27, ¶ 59 – 75, ¶ 82, ¶ 90 –112; wherein in the rule for retry and duplicate detection without block ACK negotiation, the receiver STA may discard the frame if the Retry subfield of the Frame Control field is 1 and it matches an entry in the cache… MLD data continuity may facilitate a mechanism for duplicate detection at the receiving device, and MLD data continuity system may facilitate a multi-link logical entity and have a common receiver cache record for duplicate detection for each of the individually addressed frames of a TID without block ACK agreement to be transmitted across links. Therefore, if a frame has been sent on link 1 and link 2, when the frame entry of link 2 matches the entry of link 1, the third frame entry will be discarded (i.e., not processed)).
Huang-2615 does not explicitly disclose that the frames are a plurality of frames i.e., a first frame, a second frame, and a third frame.
Referring to the invention of Huang-1777, Huang-1777 teaches that multiple frames are sent from the AP device to the Non-AP device (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 179-182; wherein one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs (non-AP) of the non-AP MLD. Therefore, if one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs of the Non-AP MLD, then it is understandable that one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP1 to Non-AP STA1, one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP2 to Non-AP STA2, and one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP3 to Non-AP STA3). Huang-1777 also teaches that a frame (i.e., a third frame) may not be processed when a duplicate frame is identified (Huang: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein the device may perform an action based on whether the non-AP MLD sent an indication that a first link of the plurality of links is selected by the non-AP MLD for receiving a first group addressed frame from the one or more group addressed frames, and because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link will not be processed, or when the first and second links are processed, the third link may not be processed). Therefore, the control unit can be configured to not perform reception processing at the third link (Link 3) based on the group addressed frames(s) received on the first link (Link 1) being a duplicate of the group addressed frame(s) received on the second link (Link 2)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the group addressed frame teachings of Huang-1777 into the invention of Huang-2165 in order to increase reliability, throughput, and robustness, and to reduce duplicate frame problem.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 1, wherein the predetermined information indicates that the third frame is transmitted in duplicate (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, ¶ 30-31; wherein all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 1, wherein, in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame and the predetermined information included in the second frame are different values, the third reception unit performs control to perform the reception processing of the third frame (Huang-1777: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link may or may not be processed, likewise when the first and second link are processed, the third link may or may not be processed depending on if the frames are duplicates or not). Therefore, when the group addressed frame(s) of the first link and the second link are different, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the group addressed frame(s) of the third link can be processed).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to claim 1, wherein the third frame is a group addressed frame compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards (Huang-2615: Fig. 1, ¶ 29, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein the wireless network 100 may include one or more user devices 120 and one or more access points(s) (AP) 102, which may communicate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 communication standards, and group addressed frame (i.e., the third frame) is sent from the AP3 of the AP MLD to the Non-AP STA3 of the non-AP MLD via Link 3).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 1, wherein the first frame and the second frame is a beacon frame (Huang-1777: Fig. 3C, ¶ 97-101, ¶ 144; wherein the non-AP MLLE only needs to be awake for the delivery traffic indication message (DTIM) Beacon (i.e., the beacon frame as shown in Fig. 3C on Link 1 and on Link 2) of the link that is configured to receive the group addressed frame (i.e., which is the information carried with the DTIM for the non-AP MLD), and the TIM element (which comprises a DTIM) is in a management frame like a Beacon Frame. Therefore, the first frame received on both Link 1 and Link 2 are beacon frames as shown in the Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 5, wherein the predetermined information is stored in a traffic indication map (TIM) element or a vendor specific element of the beacon frame (Huang-1777: Fig. 3C, ¶ 97-101, ¶ 144; wherein the non-AP MLLE only needs to be awake for the delivery traffic indication message (DTIM) Beacon of the link that is configured to receive the group addressed frame (i.e., which is the information carried with the DTIM for the non-AP MLD), and the TIM element (which comprises a DTIM) is in a management frame like a Beacon Frame. Therefore the information is carried in the TIM element of the beacon frame).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 1, wherein the communication device performs multi-link communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards (Huang-2615: Fig. 1, ¶ 29, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein the wireless network 100 may include one or more user devices 120 and one or more access points(s) (AP) 102, which may communicate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 communication standards, and the one or more APs of the AP MLD perform multi-link communication with the one or more Non-APs of the Non-AP STAs (i.e., via links 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Fig. 3)).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 1, wherein the communication device is a communication device, in a case where the communication device is receiving data via the first frequency channel, unable to transmit data simultaneously via the second frequency channel (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, ¶ 30, ¶ 93; wherein, with the existence of legacy STAs in each link and different target beacon transmission time (TBTT) in different links, it is well known in the art that most non-AP MLD devices cannot transmit and receive at the same time because the most common mode legacy STAs apply is the NSTR (Non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive) mode).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Huang-2615 teaches a control method for a communication device as a station (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link Non-AP logical entity or Non-AP MLD), the method comprising:
establishing a first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1) and a second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2) with another communication device (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link AP logical entity or AP MLD), the first link using a first frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1 operating on 2.4 GHz), the second link using a second frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2 operating on 5 GHz);
receiving a frame including predetermined information (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 1), and receiving a frame including the predetermined information transmitted from the other communication device via the second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 2);
performing reception processing of a frame transmitted from the other communication device via the third link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 3); and
controlling not to perform reception processing of the frame in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame received in the receiving and the predetermined information included in the second frame received in the receiving are a same value (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 27, ¶ 59 – 75, ¶ 82, ¶ 90 –112; wherein in the rule for retry and duplicate detection without block ACK negotiation, the receiver STA may discard the frame if the Retry subfield of the Frame Control field is 1 and it matches an entry in the cache… MLD data continuity may facilitate a mechanism for duplicate detection at the receiving device, and MLD data continuity system may facilitate a multi-link logical entity and have a common receiver cache record for duplicate detection for each of the individually addressed frames of a TID without block ACK agreement to be transmitted across links. Therefore, if a frame has been sent on link 1 and link 2, when the frame entry of link 2 matches the entry of link 1, the third frame entry will be discarded (i.e., not processed)).
Huang-2615 does not explicitly disclose that the frames are a plurality of frames i.e., a first frame, a second frame, and a third frame.
Referring to the invention of Huang-1777, Huang-1777 teaches that multiple frames are sent from the AP device to the Non-AP device (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 179-182; wherein one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs (non-AP) of the non-AP MLD. Therefore, if one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs of the Non-AP MLD, then it is understandable that one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP1 to Non-AP STA1, one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP2 to Non-AP STA2, and one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP3 to Non-AP STA3). Huang-1777 also teaches that a frame (i.e., a third frame) may not be processed when a duplicate frame is identified (Huang: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein the device may perform an action based on whether the non-AP MLD sent an indication that a first link of the plurality of links is selected by the non-AP MLD for receiving a first group addressed frame from the one or more group addressed frames, and because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link will not be processed, or when the first and second links are processed, the third link may not be processed). Therefore, the control unit can be configured to not perform reception processing at the third link (Link 3) based on the group addressed frames(s) received on the first link (Link 1) being a duplicate of the group addressed frame(s) received on the second link (Link 2)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the group addressed frame teachings of Huang-1777 into the invention of Huang-2165 in order to increase reliability, throughput, and robustness, and to reduce duplicate frame problem.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for the communication device according to Claim 9 (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 115; wherein memory 608 may include any type of memory, including non-transitory memory, for storing information in a form readable by a machine and memory 608 may store information for configuring the processing circuitry 606 to perform operations for configuring and transmitting message frames and performing the various operations described herein).
Regarding claim 11, Huang-2615 teaches a communication device as an access point (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link AP logical entity or AP MLD) comprising:
an establishment unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of communications circuitry 602 comprised in AP1) configured to establish a first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1) and a second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2) with another communication device (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link Non-AP logical entity or Non-AP MLD), the first link using a first frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1 operating on 2.4 GHz), the second link using a second frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2 operating on 5 GHz);
a first transmission unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in AP1) configured to transmit a frame including predetermined information to the other communication device via the first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 1);
a second transmission unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in AP2) configured to transmit a frame including predetermined information to the other communication device via the second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 2);
and a third transmission unit (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 113 – 115; in view of transceiver 610 comprised in AP3) configured to transmit a frame to the other communication device via the third link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 3);
wherein, the other communication apparatus does not perform reception processing of the frame in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame and the predetermined information included in the second frame are the same value (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 27, ¶ 59 – 75, ¶ 82, ¶ 90 –112; wherein in the rule for retry and duplicate detection without block ACK negotiation, the receiver STA may discard the frame if the Retry subfield of the Frame Control field is 1 and it matches an entry in the cache… MLD data continuity may facilitate a mechanism for duplicate detection at the receiving device, and MLD data continuity system may facilitate a multi-link logical entity and have a common receiver cache record for duplicate detection for each of the individually addressed frames of a TID without block ACK agreement to be transmitted across links. Therefore, if a frame has been sent on link 1 and link 2, when the frame entry of link 2 matches the entry of link 1, the third frame entry will be discarded (i.e., not processed)).
Huang-2615 does not explicitly disclose that the frames are a plurality of frames i.e., a first frame, a second frame, and a third frame, and wherein the predetermined information indicates that the third frame is transmitted in duplicate.
Referring to the invention of Huang-1777, Huang-1777 teaches that multiple frames are sent from the AP device to the Non-AP device (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 179-182; wherein one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs (non-AP) of the non-AP MLD. Therefore, if one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs of the Non-AP MLD, then it is understandable that one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP1 to Non-AP STA1, one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP2 to Non-AP STA2, and one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP3 to Non-AP STA3). Huang-1777 also teaches that a frame (i.e., a third frame) may not be processed when a duplicate frame is identified (Huang: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein the device may perform an action based on whether the non-AP MLD sent an indication that a first link of the plurality of links is selected by the non-AP MLD for receiving a first group addressed frame from the one or more group addressed frames, and because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link will not be processed, or when the first and second links are processed, the third link may not be processed). Therefore, the control unit can be configured to not perform reception processing at the third link (Link 3) based on the group addressed frames(s) received on the first link (Link 1) being a duplicate of the group addressed frame(s) received on the second link (Link 2)); and wherein the predetermined information indicates that the third frame is transmitted in duplicate (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, ¶ 30-31; wherein all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the group addressed frame teachings of Huang-1777 into the invention of Huang-2165 in order to increase reliability, throughput, and robustness, and to reduce duplicate frame problem.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 11, wherein, in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame and the predetermined information included in the second frame are different values, the communication apparatus performs the reception processing of the third frame (Huang-1777: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link may or may not be processed, likewise when the first and second link are processed, the third link may or may not be processed depending on if the frames are duplicates or not). Therefore, when the group addressed frame(s) of the first link and the second link are different, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the group addressed frame(s) of the third link can be processed).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 11, wherein the third frame is a group addressed frame compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards (Huang-2615: Fig. 1, ¶ 29, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein the wireless network 100 may include one or more user devices 120 and one or more access points(s) (AP) 102, which may communicate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 communication standards, and group addressed frame (i.e., the third frame) is sent from the AP3 of the AP MLD to the Non-AP STA3 of the non-AP MLD via Link 3).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 11, wherein the first frame and the second frame is a beacon frame (Huang-1777: Fig. 3C, ¶ 97-101, ¶ 144; wherein the non-AP MLLE only needs to be awake for the delivery traffic indication message (DTIM) Beacon (i.e., the beacon frame as shown in Fig. 3C on Link 1 and on Link 2) of the link that is configured to receive the group addressed frame (i.e., which is the information carried with the DTIM for the non-AP MLD), and the TIM element (which comprises a DTIM) is in a management frame like a Beacon Frame. Therefore, the first frame received on both Link 1 and Link 2 are beacon frames as shown in the Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 15, wherein the predetermined information is stored in a traffic indication map (TIM) element or a vendor specific element of the beacon frame (Huang-1777: Fig. 3C, ¶ 97-101, ¶ 144; wherein the non-AP MLLE only needs to be awake for the delivery traffic indication message (DTIM) Beacon of the link that is configured to receive the group addressed frame (i.e., which is the information carried with the DTIM for the non-AP MLD), and the TIM element (which comprises a DTIM) is in a management frame like a Beacon Frame. Therefore the information is carried in the TIM element of the beacon frame).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 11, wherein the communication device performs multi-link communication compliant with IEEE 802.11 series standards (Huang-2615: Fig. 1, ¶ 29, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein the wireless network 100 may include one or more user devices 120 and one or more access points(s) (AP) 102, which may communicate in accordance with IEEE 802.11 communication standards, and the one or more APs of the AP MLD perform multi-link communication with the one or more Non-APs of the Non-AP STAs (i.e., via links 1, 2, and 3 as shown in Fig. 3)).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches the communication device according to Claim 11, wherein the communication device is a communication device, in a case where the communication device is receiving data via the first frequency channel, unable to transmit data simultaneously via the second frequency channel (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, ¶ 30, ¶ 93; wherein, with the existence of legacy STAs in each link and different target beacon transmission time (TBTT) in different links, it is well known in the art that most non-AP MLD devices cannot transmit and receive at the same time because the most common mode legacy STAs apply is the NSTR (Non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive) mode).
Regarding claim 19, Huang-2615 teaches a control method for a communication device as an access point (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link AP logical entity or AP MLD), the method comprising:
establishing a first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1) and a second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2) with another communication device (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Multi-link Non-AP logical entity or Non-AP MLD), the first link using a first frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 1 between AP1 and Non-AP STA 1 operating on 2.4 GHz), the second link using a second frequency channel (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, ¶ 45 – 47; in view of Link 2 between AP2 and Non-AP STA 2 operating on 5 GHz);
transmitting a frame including predetermined information to the other communication device via the first link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 1);
transmitting a frame including predetermined information to the other communication device via the second link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 2);
transmitting a frame to the other communication device via the third link (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 90 – 104, ¶ 105 – 112; wherein multi-link AP logical entity uses shared SN space for the group addressed frame … transmitted across links. Thus, the group addressed frame is transmitted from the AP MLD to the Non-AP MLD via Link 3);
wherein, the other communication device does not perform reception processing of the frame in a case where the predetermined information included in the first frame and the predetermined information included in the second frame are the same value (Huang-2615: Fig. 3, Fig. 5, ¶ 27, ¶ 59 – 75, ¶ 82, ¶ 90 –112; wherein in the rule for retry and duplicate detection without block ACK negotiation, the receiver STA may discard the frame if the Retry subfield of the Frame Control field is 1 and it matches an entry in the cache… MLD data continuity may facilitate a mechanism for duplicate detection at the receiving device, and MLD data continuity system may facilitate a multi-link logical entity and have a common receiver cache record for duplicate detection for each of the individually addressed frames of a TID without block ACK agreement to be transmitted across links. Therefore, if a frame has been sent on link 1 and link 2, when the frame entry of link 2 matches the entry of link 1, the third frame entry will be discarded (i.e., not processed)).
Huang-2615 does not explicitly disclose that the frames are a plurality of frames i.e., a first frame, a second frame, and a third frame; and wherein the predetermined information indicates that the third frame is transmitted in duplicate.
Referring to the invention of Huang-1777, Huang-1777 teaches that multiple frames are sent from the AP device to the Non-AP device (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 179-182; wherein one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs (non-AP) of the non-AP MLD. Therefore, if one or more group addressed frames are sent from the APs of the AP MLD to the non-AP STAs of the Non-AP MLD, then it is understandable that one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP1 to Non-AP STA1, one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP2 to Non-AP STA2, and one or more group addressed frames are sent from AP3 to Non-AP STA3). Huang-1777 also teaches that a frame (i.e., a third frame) may not be processed when a duplicate frame is identified (Huang: ¶ 30-31, Fig. 3A, Fig. 9, ¶ 182; wherein the device may perform an action based on whether the non-AP MLD sent an indication that a first link of the plurality of links is selected by the non-AP MLD for receiving a first group addressed frame from the one or more group addressed frames, and because all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links, a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate that a non-AP MLLE (i.e., a non-AP MLD) only takes the group addressed frame in one link at a time (i.e., when the first link is processed, the second link will not be processed, or when the first and second links are processed, the third link may not be processed). Therefore, the control unit can be configured to not perform reception processing at the third link (Link 3) based on the group addressed frames(s) received on the first link (Link 1) being a duplicate of the group addressed frame(s) received on the second link (Link 2)); and wherein the predetermined information indicates that the third frame is transmitted in duplicate (Huang-1777: Fig. 3A, ¶ 30-31; wherein all the links may carry a duplicate GA frame(s) that may be sent at different times on different links).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the group addressed frame teachings of Huang-1777 into the invention of Huang-2165 in order to increase reliability, throughput, and robustness, and to reduce duplicate frame problem.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Huang-2615 in view of Huang-1777 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for the communication device according to Claim 19 (Huang-2615: Fig. 6, ¶ 115; wherein memory 608 may include any type of memory, including non-transitory memory, for storing information in a form readable by a machine and memory 608 may store information for configuring the processing circuitry 606 to perform operations for configuring and transmitting message frames and performing the various operations described herein).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. [US 20200396568 A1]: Group Addressed Data Delivery.
Xu et al. [US 20200119864 A1]: Communication Processing Method and Communication Apparatus; Xu teaches that when a duplicated data is identified, the transmit end sends a message to the receive end, the receive end then indicated in a status report that the data has been received and does not instruct the other path to retransmit the duplicated data.
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 HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights