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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the following:
In the rejection of Claim 5, the Office Action relies on Asterjadhi, [0135] as allegedly disclosing these features. Office Action, page 3. Asterjadhi discloses activation of an auxiliary link to a non-AP STA (or a UE). When the link is activated, the UE wakes up. Asterjadhi, [0135]. Asterjadhi discloses activating an auxiliary link to wake up "its STA interface for the auxiliary link." However, in contrast to Applicant's claims, Asterjadhi does not disclose or suggest that the non-AP STA receives a wake up signal that includes a request to wake up a plurality of receivers. Waking up an STA receiver is not the same as using a signal to wake up a plurality of receivers.
Therefore, Asterjadhi fails to teach or suggest "the wake-up signal including a request to wake up a plurality of receivers corresponding to the selected links," as recited in independent Claims 1 and 21. Hence, Claims 1 and 21 are allowable and withdrawal of their rejections is respectfully requested.
As a preliminary matter, the applicant did not incorporate the subject matter of claim 5. Original claim 1 and claim 5 only claimed what the wake-up signal was “indicative of” and what wake-up signal indicates but they did not explicitly define “the wake-up signal including a request to wake up a plurality of receivers” as now explicitly claimed. The applicant’s amendment is much more specific than the previous claims which only defined the invention by what the signal indicates but not explicitly what the signal includes. Additionally, the claims are now further limited to cover the selection of a plurality of links rather than just “one or more” as previously claimed.
The applicant’s arguments ignore the actual breadth of the claim. The applicant discloses the following, on page 20, line 17 of the disclosure, about how the wake-up signal is transmitted:
Typically, the wake-up signal may be sent on a first link and a second link (e.g., the link of the woken up receiver) is used for acknowledgement (e.g., in form of a poll packet) and data communication. The first and second links may be the same link or different links.
The applicant’s claim of transmitting the wake-up signal covers sending the wake-up signal on a first link and a second link that can be different. The applicant has defined transmitting a wake-up signal as sending a signal on multiple links or a single link and therefore the claim can be interpreted either way based on the guidance given in sections 2111.01(I) and (IV)(A) of the MPEP. With the scope of the claims in mind, the previously cited portions of Asterjadhi teach the claimed transmission because paragraph 101 shows that more than one auxiliary link can be selected at a time and paragraph 135 shows how a wake-up/activation signal can be sent on each link, which reads on the claim in light of the applicant’s disclosure of transmitting a wake-up signal.
Even if the applicant were to explicitly claim sending a single wake-up signal for multiple receivers to a wake-up radio (ref. nos. 339 and 439 in Figures 3 and 4), the applicant does not disclose any novel technology for implementing a wake-up radio as the applicant has not disclosed any specific hardware for it and states on page 13, 15, and 16 that it implements known IEEE 802.11 standards. Therefore, the according to the applicant’s own disclosure sending a single message to a wake-up radio was well known. This is evident from U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0212062 by Kurian et al. which shows in paragraphs 127-131 that the use of 802.11be standards, as disclosed by the applicant, was well known. Should the applicant explicitly claim the functionality of sending a single message to a wake-up radio, the Examiner will likely apply Kurian.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0007168 by Asterjadhi et al.
As to claim 1, Asterjadhi teaches a method for a radio access node (AP MLD 110) configured for transmission to a user device (Non-AP MLD 120) over multiple links (links 132 and 134), the method comprising: responsive to data (paragraphs 135 and 136, data may be available to send on both links 132 and 134 in the form of data 415 and 416) being available for transmission to the user device, determining which of the multiple links are possible links for transmission of the data (paragraphs 104-106 describe the same technique as disclosed in page 10, lines 5-11 of the applicant’s disclosure); selecting a plurality of links of the possible links (paragraphs 135, the control frame is selected by AP 110 for waking link 134. Paragraph 101 explains how a plurality of auxiliary links can be selected); and transmitting a wake-up signal to the user device, the wake-up signal including a request to wake up a plurality of receivers corresponding to the selected links (paragraphs 135 and 136 and Figure 4A, ref. no. 412 wakes link 134 to receive data 416. Paragraph 101 explains how multiple auxiliary links can be selected).
As to claim 2, Figure 4A shows a transmission over multiple links that comprises a multi-link operation.
As to claim 5, see paragraph 135 and Figure 4A, if the signal wakes up all receivers of the links, then it will wake up receivers corresponding to any sub-set which would be included in all receivers.
As to claim 6, device 120 allocates a resource by waking link 134 and sends ack 414.
As to claim 8, signal 412 is indicative of waking link 134.
As to claim 9, see Abstract, the signaling 412 in paragraph 135 and be based on communication load, throughput requirements, or QOS.
As to claim 21, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claim 25, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0007168 by Asterjadhi et al. in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (see section 2129(II) of the MPEP).
As to claim 3, Asterjadhi teaches the subject matter of claim 1, including sending a wake-up signal however Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach executing a wake-up protocol.
On page 13, lines 7-17 of the applicant’s disclosure, the applicant describes such protocols and their execution as well-known prior art.
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Asterjadhi regarding waking up a link on device with the teachings of a using a wake-up protocol because the applicant describes such protocols as being specified by 802.11ax, which is used by the devices in Asterjadhi (paragraph 170), and therefore its incorporation into the teachings of Asterjadhi.
As to claim 4, Asterjadhi teaches the subject matter of claim 1, however Asterjadhi does not explicitly teach negotiating wake-up protocols for the multiple links.
On page 14, lines 21-24, the applicant describes negotiating wake-up protocols as operations defined for the WUR standard in relation to IEEE 802.11 communication.
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the device communication art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Asterjadhi regarding waking up a link on device with the teachings of a negotiating wake-up protocols because Asterjadhi conforms to 802.11 standards and therefore the use of the known WUR standard prior to executing Figure 4A would be obvious in the broad context of negotiation disclosed by the applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights