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 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Fischer describes a communication method. However, Fischer does not disclose or suggest a communication method that includes: a) specifying a transmission_available_time on a first wireless link based on a set of criteria that includes a transmission request time indicated by a transmission request frame extending beyond a transmission end time of a second frame transmitted by another wireless communication terminal on a second wireless link; or b) a transmission_available_time specified in a transmission_available_time specifying information that comprises a transmission end time of the second frame transmitted on the second wireless link such that a transmission end time of the first frame transmitted on the first wireless link ends simultaneously with the transmission end time of the second frame transmitted on the second wireless link.“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Fischer discloses stat x requesting a transmission opportunity from sta 1 while sta w already is already transmitting to sta 1; sta x requests 9500 duration which is longer than the remaining txop of sta w. Fischer discloses the AP responds to sta x with a negotiated duration of 3000; this allows sta x to align with sta w by ending the transmission concurrently with sta w (paragraph 141, fig. 17). This alignment case reads on the limitations of claim 1.
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1, 9, 16, and 26 still stands.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 2021/0195540).
For claims 1, 9, 16, and 26; Fischer discloses: communication control circuit for a wireless communication device that is configured to communicate on a plurality of wireless links (paragraph 46: WLAN devices may be built with multiple radios and MACs to operate over multiple wireless links simultaneously. However, when there is a transmission occurring on one link the near-end cross talk can cause deafness on the other link, which may cause the reliability of the determination of the medium state on that link to be significantly reduced), the communication control circuit comprising: control circuitry configured to: control the wireless communication device to receive. from a wireless communication terminal on a first wireless link of a plurality of wireless links, a transmission request frame for a first frame (paragraph 141: Link2 RTS DUR==9500), in response to the transmission request frame, control the wireless communication device to transmit, to the wireless communication terminal on the first wireless link (paragraph 141: STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR), a response frame that includes transmission available time specifying information that specifies a transmission available time of the wireless communication terminal (paragraph 141: Link2 CTS DUR==3000 (e.g., negotiated DUR)), and control the wireless communication device to receive, from the wireless communication terminal on the first wireless link, the first frame in accordance with the specified transmission available time (paragraph 141: STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine to specify the transmission available time on the first wireless link based on a set of criteria that includes a transmission request time indicated by the transmission request frame extends beyond a transmission end time of a second frame transmitted by another wireless communication terminal on a second wireless link (paragraph 141: CTS indicates amount of time available for PPDU+BA to create aligned operation with the activity on Link1, where STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR, thereby causing RX/TX alignment), and wherein the transmission available time specified in the transmission available time specifying information comprises a transmission end time of the second frame transmitted on the second wireless link such that a transmission end time of the first frame transmitted on the first wireless link ends simultaneously with the transmission end time of the second frame transmitted on the second wireless link (paragraph 141: Link2 CTS DUR==3000 (e.g., negotiated DUR). Also, CTS indicates amount of time available for PPDU+BA to create aligned operation with the activity on Link1).
For claims 6, 19, 23, and 28; Fischer discloses: wherein the response frame is an extended response frame added with an extension field comprising the transmission_available_time specifying information (paragraph 141: CTS indicates amount of time available for PPDU+BA to create aligned operation with the activity on Link1, where STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR, thereby causing RX/TX alignment).
For claims 17 and 29; Fischer discloses: amplification circuitry; and at least one antenna (paragraph 52: Each of the wireless communication devices 111-115 includes a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter and an RF receiver. The RF transmitter converts the symbols into an RF signal and transmits the RF signal via an antenna. The RF receiver receives an RF signal via the antenna and converts the RF signal into one or more symbols for processing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Sun et al. (US 2023/0308938). (“Sun”)
For claims 2, 18, 22, and 27; Fischer discloses the subject matter in claim 5 as described above in the office action.
Fischer does not expressly disclose, but Sun from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the set of criteria further includes information about a status of a buffer in the wireless communication device (paragraph 111: AP MLD may be aware of the congestion status of different links and the buffer status of the non-AP MLD, which may have included buffer status report (BSR) in the headers of medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (MPDU) in the previously transmitted TB-PPDU. Assuming that links B and C are congested, the AP may only schedule UL access on link A and for the non-AP MLD to avoid EDCA access on the links B and C). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the prioritization as described by Sun in the MLD system as described by Fischer. The motivation is to improve multi-link transmission QoS.
For claims 8, 21, and 25; Fischer discloses: after determining to specify the transmission_available_time on the first wireless link, transmitting a third frame to at least one of the wireless communication terminal or a different wireless communication terminal on the first wireless link (paragraph 141: In addition, BA+Q is an AMPDU which contains a BA+quality of service (QoS) Data, where there are enough symbols to align the next transmissions in the sequence (e.g., forced TXOP sharing)).
Claim(s) 7, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Ouchi (US 2023/0057296).
For claims 7, 20, and 24; Fischer discloses the subject matter in claim 6 as described above in the office action.
Fischer does not expressly disclose, but Ouchi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the response frame comprises information indicating a change of a communication direction (paragraph 69: the bit of an RDG/More PPDU subfield of an HT Control field of the MAC frame is set to “1”. When the subfield is set to “1”, this indicates that transmission in the opposite direction is ensured, as indicated by the name (Reverse Direction Grant) of the RDG). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Ouchi in the MLD system as described by Fischer. The motivation is to improve multi-link transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mueck et al. (US 2021/0385865); Mueck discloses mitigating interference between multiple radio access technologies (RATS) that operate in the same or neighbouring channels, frequency bands, and/or bandwidths. The co-channel coexistence mechanisms include variable transmission intervals including variable gaps or guard periods, and utilizing network allocation vectors (NAV).
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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights