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 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) 1-5, 9, 10-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 2021/0195540).
For claims 1, 9, 10, and 15; Fischer discloses: a communication unit configured to communicate with a wireless communication terminal on a plurality of 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); and a communication control unit configured to transmit, when receiving a transmission request frame for a first frame transmitted from the wireless communication terminal on a first link (paragraph 141: Link2 RTS DUR==9500), transmission_available_time specifying information that specifies a transmission_available_time of the wireless communication terminal on the first link, to the wireless communication terminal (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 claim 2; Fischer discloses: wherein the communication control unit determines whether or not to specify the transmission_available_time on the first link on a basis of at least one of a second frame received on a second link, the transmission request frame received on the first link, and information in the communication control unit itself (paragraph 141: Link2 RTS DUR==9500), and if it is determined to specify the transmission_available_time on the first link, then transmits 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 claim 3; Fischer discloses: wherein if a transmission request time indicated by the transmission request frame received on the first link is longer than a transmission end time of the second frame transmitted by the wireless communication terminal on the second link, the communication control unit determines to specify the transmission_available_time and transmits 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 claim 4; Fischer discloses: wherein the transmission_available_time specified in the transmission_available_time specifying information is a transmission end time of the second frame transmitted on the second link (paragraph 129, 141, figure 17: STAw completes EDCA backoff and transmits a trigger indicated at 1130 (e.g., the Trigger indicates MCS, with a PPDU LENGTH that should line up the end time of the triggered PPDU with the end time of the ongoing Link1 TX)… CTS indicates amount of time available for PPDU+BA to create aligned operation with the activity on Link1… causing RX/TX alignment).
For claim 5; Fischer discloses: wherein the communication control unit transmits the transmission_available_time specifying information by a response frame to the transmission request frame (paragraph 141: Link2 RTS DUR==9500 and 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 claim 11; Fischer discloses: wherein the communication control unit determines whether or not the response frame comprises the transmission_available_time specifying information, and if it is determined that the transmission_available_time specifying information is comprised, then transmits the first frame to the wireless communication device on the first link in accordance with the transmission_available_time (paragraph 141: Link2 RTS DUR==9500 and 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, where STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR, thereby causing RX/TX alignment).
For claim 12; Fischer discloses: wherein the transmission_available_time specified in the transmission_available_time specifying information is a transmission end time of a second frame transmitted by a different wireless communication terminal on a second link (paragraph 141, figure 17: Link2 RTS DUR==9500 and 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, where STAx obeys CTS DUR in its following PPDU transmission, rather than the initially indicated RTS DUR, thereby causing RX/TX alignment).
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) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Naribole et al. (US 2021/0076419). (“Naribole”)
For claims 6 and 13; Fischer discloses the subject matter in claim 5 as described above in the office action.
Fischer does not expressly disclose, but Naribole from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the response frame is an extended response frame added with an extension field comprising the transmission_available_time specifying information (paragraph 51-57: a single multi-link CTS transmission includes link status information for both the first link and the second link, and is transmitted over one of the first link and the second link). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the ML-CTS as described by Naribole in the MLD system as described by Fischer. The motivation is to improve multi-link transmission.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Naribole as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2015/0172025) (“Kwon”).
For claim 7 and 14; Fischer discloses the subject matter in claim 6 as described above in the office action.
Fischer does not expressly disclose, but Kwon from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the response frame comprises information indicating a change of a communication direction (paragraph 34, 39-42, fig. 6: the SF exchange, which is indicated by the duration field of T3, which is larger than the expected duration for a single data frame… In another example, a regular CTS frame is used, which has an MD field, for example set to zero, and a response indication field, for example set to long). 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 Kwon in the MLD system as described by Fischer. The motivation is to improve multi-link transmission.
For claim 8; Fischer discloses the subject matter in claim 7 as described above in the office action.
Fischer does not expressly disclose, but Kwon from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein after receiving the first frame transmitted from the wireless communication terminal on the first link, the communication control unit transmits a third frame to at least one of the wireless communication terminal and a different wireless communication terminal on the first link (paragraph 34, 39-42, fig. 6: the SF exchange, which is indicated by the duration field of T3, which is larger than the expected duration for a single data frame… Other UEs 156 receive the NDP-CTS frame with the duration of T3, and set NAV (CTS) based on T3. Because T3 is not equal to the expected conventional duration of a single exchange (T1-T2), the other UEs know that an SF exchange has been initiated… communications controller 152 transmits a data frame). 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 Kwon 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).
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