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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 states “wherein the first WLAN device is an AP” and “wherein the first WLAN device is a non-AP MLD”. Based on Applicant’s specification (see Figure 1), this appears to be a typo. The limitation should be either (i) “wherein the first WLAN device is an AP” and “wherein the second WLAN device is a non-AP MLD”or (ii) “wherein the second WLAN device is an AP” and “wherein the first WLAN device is a non-AP MLD”. Appropriate correction is required. The claim will be examined accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-5 and 18-21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,5, and 9 of copending Application No. 18538596 (reference application referred to as A596). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1:
A596 discloses a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device, comprising: a controller configured to, establish a multi-link association with a second WLAN device (Clm 1 announcing, by the first MLD, a set of links with the second MLD, wherein the set of links includes a primary link and a non-primary link – Examiner Note MLD is a WLAN device);
wherein the multi-link association includes a primary link and a non-primary link (Clm 1 announcing, by the first MLD, a set of links with the second MLD, wherein the set of links includes a primary link and a non-primary link);
detect that the primary-link is busy (Clm 1 switching, by the first MLD and second MLD, to the non-primary link when the primary link is busy); and
perform frame exchanges on the non-primary link if the primary-link is busy (Clm 1 switching, by the first MLD and second MLD, to the non-primary link when the primary link is busy; exchanging frames between the first MLD and the second MLD).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of A596.
Re claim 3:
A596 discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1, further comprising: detect that the primary-link is no longer busy; and perform frame exchanges on the primary link if the primary-link is no longer busy (Clm 1 switching back to the primary link, by the first MLD and the second MLD, when a transmit opportunity (TXOP) of the primary link ends – Examiner Note as shown above, the frame exchange occurs when the link is available and hence once the primary TXOP ends, the link will be available and therefore frame exchange on it can occur).
Re claim 4:
A596 discloses the first WLAN device of claim 3: wherein the primary link is busy if either the first or second WLAN devices holds a TXOP (Clm 1 switching back to the primary link, by the first MLD and the second MLD, when a transmit opportunity (TXOP) of the primary link ends)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 2 of A596.
Re claim 18: Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 9 of A596.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5 of A596.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 5 of A596.
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5,8-10,13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu – referred to as Kai Yung (US 20210212118).
Re claim 1:
Kai Yung discloses a first WLAN (wireless local area network) device, comprising: a controller configured to, establish a multi-link association with a second WLAN device (Para.[0042] Referring to FIG. 6, a non-AP MLD (e.g., STA 125, denoted as “STA1” and “STA2” in FIG. 6, which are the STAs of the non-AP MLD on link 1 and link 2, respectively) associated with a constrained AP MLD (e.g., AP 120) and Para.[0088] with apparatus 1410 implemented in or as AP 120 and apparatus 1420 implemented in or as STA 125 or STA 115 of a wireless network such as a WLAN);
wherein the multi-link association includes a primary link and a non-primary link (Para.[0042] When a backoff timer counts down to zero on link 1, the STA may obtain an UL TXOP to perform frame exchanges on both link 1 and link 2 if the channel status of link2 is idle (e.g., virtual CS idle (e.g., NAV=0), PIFS CS idle and/or backoff timer counting down to zero or is already zero));
detect that the primary-link is busy (Para.[0042] In case that the channel status of link 1 is not idle (e.g., being busy due to overlapping basic service set (OBSS) transmission or other system interference), when a backoff timer counts down to zero on link 2, the STA may obtain an UL TXOP to perform frame exchanges transmit on link 2); and
perform frame exchanges on the non-primary link if the primary-link is busy (Para.[0042] In case that the channel status of link 1 is not idle (e.g., being busy due to overlapping basic service set (OBSS) transmission or other system interference), when a backoff timer counts down to zero on link 2, the STA may obtain an UL TXOP to perform frame exchanges transmit on link 2).
Re claim 2:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the first WLAN device is an AP (access point) MLD (multi-link device); and wherein the first WLAN device is a non-AP MLD (Para.[0042] Referring to FIG. 6, a non-AP MLD (e.g., STA 125, denoted as “STA1” and “STA2” in FIG. 6, which are the STAs of the non-AP MLD on link 1 and link 2, respectively) associated with a constrained AP MLD (e.g., AP 120)).
Re claim 3:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1, further comprising: detect that the primary-link is no longer busy; and perform frame exchanges on the primary link if the primary-link is no longer busy (Para.[0042] When a backoff timer counts down to zero on link 1, the STA may obtain an UL TXOP to perform frame exchanges on both link 1 and link 2 if the channel status of link2 is idle (e.g., virtual CS idle (e.g., NAV=0), PIFS CS idle and/or backoff timer counting down to zero or is already zero)).
Re claim 4:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 3: wherein the primary link is busy if either the first or second WLAN devices holds a TXOP (Fig.6 ref. Busy and ref. TXOP).
Re claim 5:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the first WLAN device communicates with the second WLAN device simultaneously over both the primary link and the non-primary link (Para.[0042] When a backoff timer counts down to zero on link 1, the STA may obtain an UL TXOP to perform frame exchanges on both link 1 and link 2 if the channel status of link2 is idle (e.g., virtual CS idle (e.g., NAV=0), PIFS CS idle and/or backoff timer counting down to zero or is already zero)).
Re claim 8:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the second WLAN device is included a set of affiliated WLAN devices; (Para.[0049] In scenario 1000, STA1 and STA2 are affiliated with a non-STR non-AP MLD, and AP1 and AP2 are affiliated with a non-STR AP MLD – Examiner Note the AP MLD is the “second WLAN device”); and
wherein each of the set of affiliated WLAN devices selects its own primary link (Para.[0064] Under the proposed scheme, a non-STR AP MLD may determine the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link (or secondary link set)).
Re claim 9:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the second WLAN device is included a set of affiliated WLAN devices (Para.[0049] In scenario 1000, STA1 and STA2 are affiliated with a non-STR non-AP MLD, and AP1 and AP2 are affiliated with a non-STR AP MLD); and
wherein the first WLAN device assigns a primary link to each device in the set of affiliated WLAN devices (Para.[0064] Under the proposed scheme, a non-STR AP MLD may determine the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link (or secondary link set), and the non-STR AP MLD may indicate the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link(s) for each primary link in one or more management frames such as, for example and without limitation, beacon frames and probe response frames. Under the proposed scheme, when a non-AP MLD receives the indication of the primary link (or primary link set) and the corresponding secondary link(s) from the non-STR AP MLD, the non-AP MLD may determine the primary link(s) and the corresponding secondary link(s) for each primary link indicated in the received multi-link element – Examiner Note the AP MLD is the “first WLAN device”).
Re claim 10:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 8: wherein each of the set of affiliated WLAN devices shares a common setup link (Para.[0064] Under the proposed scheme, a non-STR AP MLD may determine the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link (or secondary link set), and the non-STR AP MLD may indicate the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link(s) for each primary link in one or more management frames such as, for example and without limitation, beacon frames and probe response frames).
Re claim 13:
Kai Yung discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices announces enablement of the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation using at least one of: a basic multi-link element, a reduced neighbor report, an additional element in a beacon frame, another management (i.e. action) frame, a trigger frame, or a control frame (Para.[0064] Under the proposed scheme, a non-STR AP MLD may determine the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link (or secondary link set), and the non-STR AP MLD may indicate the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link(s) for each primary link in one or more management frames such as, for example and without limitation, beacon frames and probe response frames).
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Lu (US 20230103988).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein if either the first or second WLAN devices loses communications medium synchronization when switching between the primary link and the non-primary link, and a peer device to either the first or second WLAN devices has the medium synchronization information, then the peer device performs communications medium re-synchronization by transmitting an RTS frame to at least one of the first or second WLAN devices, and detects a received PPDU.
Lu discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein if either the first or second WLAN devices loses communications medium synchronization when switching between the primary link and the non-primary link (Fig.2 ref. STA1 and STA2 are WLAN devices and Para.[0027] In scenario 200, when STA1 was transmitting a PPDU to AP1 on the P-link, STA2 lost its medium synchronization and thus STA2 started a MediumSyncDelay timer at the end of transmission of the PPDU by STA1 – Examiner Note: a switch occurs between the primary link and non-primary link when transmission changes from STA2 to STA1), and
a peer device to either the first or second WLAN devices has the medium synchronization information, then the peer device performs communications medium re-synchronization by transmitting an RTS frame to at least one of the first or second WLAN devices, and detects a received PPDU (Para.[0026] Moreover, each of MLD 110 and MLD 120 may be configured to utilize a medium access recovery mechanism for peer MLDs and Fig.2 ref. AP2 TX RTS and Para.[0029] a TXOP initiator, which is capable of obtaining a TXOP while the MediumSyncDelay timer has a non-zero value (e.g., due to loss of medium synchronization), may transmit a control frame with an indication of loss of medium synchronization).
Lu does not explicitly show detects a received PPDU in Figure 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that after the CTS as shown in Figure 2, a PPDU is received by the STA as show in Figure 5.
Kai Yung and Lu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include an RTS frame for re-synchronization as taught by Lu in order to provide a solution for medium access recovery for peer MLDs (Lu Para.[0007]).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Kai Yung in view of Lu meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 6: wherein the RTS frame use an ED based backoff within a time period defined by a MediumSyncDelay timer, and the peer device detects a timeout of the MediumSyncDelay timer.
Lu discloses the first WLAN device of claim 6: wherein the RTS frame use an ED based backoff within a time period defined by a MediumSyncDelay timer, and the peer device detects a timeout of the MediumSyncDelay timer (Para.[0029] For instance, the TXOP initiator may use a MediumSyncDelay idle channel assessment energy detection threshold to perform a backoff procedure for channel access and Para.[0033] the MediumSyncDelay timer is reset to zero or expires).
Kai Yung and Lu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include an RTS frame for re-synchronization as taught by Lu in order to provide a solution for medium access recovery for peer MLDs (Lu Para.[0007]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Lu2 (US 20250220752).
Re claim 11:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices requests enabling of the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation; and wherein a peer device to the at least one of the first and second WLAN devices decides whether or not to accept or reject the request for the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation.
Lu2 discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices requests enabling of the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation; and wherein a peer device to the at least one of the first and second WLAN devices decides whether or not to accept or reject the request for the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation (Para.[0089] The non-AP MLD indicates multiple links requested to be set up as well as their capabilities and operating parameters in the association request frame; and the AP MLD indicates links that are accepted to set up and links that are rejected to set up among the multiple links requested to be set up as well as capabilities and operating parameters of the requested links in the association response frame).
Kai Yung and Lu2 are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to request enabling multi-link as taught by Lu2 in order to improve communication throughput and reliability (Lu2 Para.[0072]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Lorgeoux (US 20250016860).
Re claim 12:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices requests disabling of the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation; and wherein a peer device to the at least one of the first and second WLAN devices stops using the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation in response to the request disabling.
Lorgeoux discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices requests disabling of the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation; and wherein a peer device to the at least one of the first and second WLAN devices stops using the primary link and the non-primary link mode of operation in response to the request disabling (Para.[0016] A communication method in a wireless network, comprises at a requesting multi-link device, MLD: sending, to a requested MLD, an Enhanced Multi-Link, EML, Operating Mode, OM, notification frame including an EML Control field, the EML Control field comprising an EML Mode subfield set to indicate that an EML mode is disabled for a set of EML links and – Examiner Note Kai Yung discloses primary and non-primary links and a link is stopped being used once it has been enabled and then is subsequently disabled).
Kai Yung and Lorgeoux are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to request disable multi-link as taught by Lorgeoux in order to improve management of a wireless network with multi-link devices (Lorgeoux Para.[0030]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Kishida (US 20230292385).
Re claim 14:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Kai Yung further discloses the first WLAN device of claim 13: wherein the announces includes (Para.[0064] Under the proposed scheme, a non-STR AP MLD may determine the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link (or secondary link set), and the non-STR AP MLD may indicate the primary link (or primary link set) and corresponding secondary link(s) for each primary link in one or more management frames such as, for example and without limitation, beacon frames and probe response frames).
As shown above, Kai Yung discloses transmitting a message indicating the primary link and the secondary link. Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose a link identifier (ID).
Kishida discloses a link identifier (ID) (Para.[0118] As shown in FIG. 14, the Frame Body of the wireless frame requesting the change of the primary link includes, for example, a terminal apparatus identifier association identifier (AID), a primary change request, and an identifier of the next primary link).
Kai Yung and Kishida are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to explicitly show a link ID as taught by Kishida in order to improve communication stability curing multi-link (Kishida Para.[0004]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Ikeda (US 20230102066).
Re claim 15:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in a same power save mode at a same time.
Ikeda discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in a same power save mode at a same time (Fig.10 ref. STA1 and STA3 are both in PS-Awake – Examiner Note: Kai Yung explicitly labels the links as primary and non-primary).
Kai Yung and Ikeda are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include power saving modes as taught by Ikeda in order to efficiently perform power savings (Ikeda Para.[0007]).
Re claim 16:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in a different power save mode at a same time.
Ikeda discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in a different power save mode at a same time (Fig.10 ref. STA1 is PS Awake and STA2 is Doze – Examiner Note: Kai Yung explicitly labels the links as primary and non-primary).
Kai Yung and Ikeda are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include power saving modes as taught by Ikeda in order to efficiently perform power savings (Ikeda Para.[0007]).
Re claim 17:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in an awake state in a power save mode at a same time.
Ikeda discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein the primary link and a non-primary link are in an awake state in a power save mode at a same time (Fig.10 ref. STA1 and STA3 are both in PS-Awake – Examiner Note: Kai Yung explicitly labels the links as primary and non-primary).
Kai Yung and Ikeda are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include power saving modes as taught by Ikeda in order to efficiently perform power savings (Ikeda Para.[0007]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai Yung (US 20210212118) in view of Asterjadhi (US 20240064832).
Re claim 18:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a multi-link single-radio (MLSR) device.
Asterjadhi discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a multi-link single-radio (MLSR) device (Para.[0065] In such implementations, the non-AP MLD 620 may operate in a multi-link single-radio (MLSR) mode or an enhanced MLSR (eMLSR) mode).
Kai Yung and Asterjadhi are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include MLSR as taught by Asterjadhi in order to increase reliability, throughout, and power savings (Asterjadhi Para.[0035-0036]).
Re claim 19:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a multi-link multi-radio (MLMR) device.
Asterjadhi discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a multi-link multi-radio (MLMR) device (Para.[0066] In such implementations, the non-AP MLD 620 may operate in a multi-link multi-radio (MLMR) simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) mode or a multi-link multi-radio non-STR (NSTR) mode).
Kai Yung and Asterjadhi are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include MLMR as taught by Asterjadhi in order to increase reliability, throughout, and power savings (Asterjadhi Para.[0035-0036]).
Re claim 20:
As discussed above, Kai Yung meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Kai Yung does not explicitly disclose the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a STR (Simultaneous Transmit and Receive) MLMR (Multilink Multi-Radio) MLD device.
Asterjadhi discloses the first WLAN device of claim 1: wherein at least one of the first and second WLAN devices is a STR (Simultaneous Transmit and Receive) MLMR (Multilink Multi-Radio) MLD device (Para.[0066] In such implementations, the non-AP MLD 620 may operate in a multi-link multi-radio (MLMR) simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) mode or a multi-link multi-radio non-STR (NSTR) mode).
Kai Yung and Asterjadhi are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kai Yung to include STR MLMR as taught by Asterjadhi in order to increase reliability, throughout, and power savings (Asterjadhi Para.[0035-0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ho (US 20210100050) discloses using a secondary link when a primary link is busy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471