DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1-2, 5-7, 12-13, 18, 21 and 24-25 have been amended.
Claims: 4, 11, 20 and 23 have not been amended.
Claims: 3, 10, 14-17, 19 and 22 have been cancelled.
EXAMINER’S NOTES:
The examiner notes that the previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection for claim 12 indicated on pages 2-4 of the previous office action filed on 12/29/25 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments filed 03/27/26 with regards to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 18, 20-21 and 23-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … Claim 1 as amended recites: “A signal processing method, performed by an access point device, comprising: sending a frame, wherein the frame comprises a restricted target wake time (rTWT) element and a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element; wherein the rTWT element comprises at least one of first indication information and second indication information; wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service; the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service or a downlink service.”
Independent claims 8 and 18 are similarly amended. Applicant respectfully submits neither the cited portions nor other remaining portions of Kwon in view of LU teach or suggest the above emphasized features of amended claim 1. … Kwon does not disclose the functional correspondence between the quiet element and the rTWT element. The quiet element in Kwon is used for general channel silence, while the TWT element is used for wake-up scheduling. There is no binding relationship between the two, and it is not revealed that the quiet element is used to protect the rTWT service period (See Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Arguments filed 03/27/26).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the teachings of Kwon does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of “sending a frame, wherein the frame comprises a restricted target wake time (rTWT) element and a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element;” as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an “Kwon does not disclose the functional correspondence between the quiet element and the rTWT element. ... There is no binding relationship between the two, and it is not revealed that the quiet element is used to protect the rTWT service period”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this instance, the applicant’s claimed invention only recites “a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element;” without explicitly reciting in the applicant’s claimed invention as to how said quiet element corresponds to the rTWT element and no explicit recitation of any functional relationship or binding relationship or that the quiet element is used to protect the rTWT service period as the applicant argues and as such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the applicant’s claim limitations would be any type of relationship or association between the quiet element and the rTWT element.
The examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of Kwon, [0057], [0084] & [0086] seen below:
[0057] In some embodiments, an update event (or a critical update event) may involve a management frame indicating and/or including a Channel Switch Announcement (CSA) element, an extended CSA (eCSA) element, a Quiet element, a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time (TWT) element that includes a restricted access service period (SP), unless otherwise explicitly indicated. Other examples of update events (or critical update events) may involve a management frame indicating and/or including an Enhanced Distribution Channel Access (EDCA) Parameter Set element, a multi-user (MU) EDCA Parameter Set element, and/or an Operation element (e.g., a High-Throughput (HT) Operation element, a VHT Operation element, an HE Operation element, and/or an EHT Operation element). In an embodiment, a field that indicates the update event (or the critical update event) has a length of at most one octet, and a Change Sequence value carried in the field may be modulo of a maximum value.
[0084] According to a standardization of an IEEE 802.11 TGbe communication protocol, multi-link communications may also implement use of a Quiet element. As an example, a Quiet element indicates a quiet interval during which a non-AP STA (that does not operate according to an EHT communication protocol (e.g., a non-EHT STA)) is not allowed to access a medium (e.g., a channel medium, a link, a band, etc.). In such an example, the Quiet element is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT is established. In an embodiment, non-AP STAs operating according to an EHT communication protocol (e.g., EHT non-AP STAs) are allowed to ignore the quiet interval when the quiet interval overlaps with a restricted SP, such that the non-AP STA is therefore allowed to access the medium during the restricted SP. In some embodiments, an AP operating according to an EHT communication protocol (e.g., an EHT AP) may announce quiet intervals with Quiet elements that overlap with restricted SPs via management frames transmitted to non-AP STAs. In such embodiments, support for restricted SPs is optional for EHT non-AP STAs and EHT APs. An example of a Quiet element is described in further detail with reference to FIG. 9.
[0086] In some embodiments, a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD. The Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs (of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD) that do not support the restricted SP, such that the scheduling information of the restricted SP may be considered an update event. Because the quiet element is included in the management frame of the first AP on the first link, information included in the Quiet element is also included in a management frame of a second AP (of the same AP MLD) on a second link. Therefore, non-AP MLDs that receive the management frame from the second AP will identify that they may not access the first link, and thus, the non-AP MLDs may not access the restricted SP on the first link.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Kwon seen above, Kwon, [0057] discloses a management frame indicating and/or including (i.e. reads on the frame comprises) a Channel Switch Announcement CSA element, an extended CSA eCSA element, a Quiet element (i.e. reads on a quiet element), a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time TWT element that includes a restricted access service period SP (i.e. reads on a rTWT) and Kwon, [0084] discloses the Quiet element (i.e. reads on quiet element) is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT (i.e. reads on corresponding to the rTWT element) is established and Kwon, [0086] discloses a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD and the Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD that do not support the restricted SP which clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize and find obvious based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole, that the quiet element corresponds to the restricted TWT as it is specifically included in the link where a restricted TWT is established where it may be used to protect the restricted SP of the TWT and which clearly reads on applicant’s argued limitations of “sending a frame, wherein the frame comprises a restricted target wake time (rTWT) element and a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element;”.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … In addition, Kwon does not disclose the rTWT element including an indication related to latency or uplink/downlink direction. Kwon discloses a management frame including a Quiet element and a TWT element. However, Kwon does not disclose that the rTWT element itself includes indication information identifying the service as low-latency or indicating uplink/downlink direction. The rTWT element in Kwon only involves wake-up time and teaches nothing about indication information for identifying service type (such as low latency, uplink/downlink direction). Therefore, Kwon does not disclose the above technical features of claim 1. The Examiner relies on LU to supply these features, but LU's disclosure relates to a different context-TID-to-link mapping and latency-sensitive traffic identification-not to the rTWT element in combination with a quiet element as recited. LU discloses a format of the R-TWT element, including the mapping from TID to link and upstream/downstream traffic indicators (see Lu [0116], Figure 7B). However, the indication information in LU is in the R-TWT traffic information field and does not work in conjunction with the quiet element as in this application. LU does not disclose the functional correspondence between quiet element and rTWT element, nor raises the technical issue of using the quiet element to protect the rTWT service period. Even if LU teaches identifying latency-sensitive streams, there is no teaching or suggestion in either reference to modify Kwon's rTWT element to include such indication information in the same frame with a quiet element. The Examiner's rationale-that it would be "obvious to provide the system with a means to identify different types of services"-is conclusory and lacks evidentiary support. See KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning"). The combination of the rTWT element with indication information and a quiet element provides a technical solution to a problem not addressed by Kwon or Lu: enabling a station to, from a single frame, quickly identify the service type (low latency, direction) of the transmission to optimize resource scheduling, while protecting low latency transmission (through silent units). This improves channel efficiency and reduces latency in multi-link environments-a result not achieved by the references alone. Even if those skilled can combine Kwon with Lu, there is no reason to think of: simultaneously including the rTWT unit and the silent unit in the same management frame, and establishing a corresponding relationship between the two; containing the service type indication information (low latency, unplink/downlink direction) in the rTWT unit to optimize transmission. Therefore, LU cannot cure Kwon's aforementioned deficiencies. Based on similar reasons, amended independent claims 8 and 18 are patentably distinct from the cited prior art. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 20-21, and 23-25 depend from one of claims 1, 8, and 18, argued above as being patentably distinct from the cited art, and therefore benefit from like arguments of patentability. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of the claim set (See Pages 8-10 of Applicant’s Arguments filed 03/27/26).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the combination of the teachings of Kwon in view of Lu together as a whole does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, the examiner would like to note that the applicant’s arguments against the cited references Kwon (i.e. arguments reciting “Kwon does not disclose that the rTWT element itself includes indication information identifying the service as low-latency or indicating uplink/downlink direction … Therefore, Kwon does not disclose the above technical features of claim 1”) and Lu (i.e. arguments reciting “the indication information in LU is in the R-TWT traffic information field and does not work in conjunction with the quiet element as in this application. LU does not disclose the functional correspondence between quiet element and rTWT element, nor raises the technical issue of using the quiet element to protect the rTWT service period”) are made against each of the references alone without considering what the combination of the cited references together as a whole would teach and as such, the applicant’s arguments are against the references individually and are not therefore not based on the combination of the references as a whole.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually (see MPEP 2145, Section lV).
The applicant’s arguments also appears to be arguing that a single reference is required to show the entire claimed invention which is incorrect, as the guidelines for obviousness clearly indicates that a single reference is not required to disclose each and every element in the applicant’s claimed invention as can be seen in the highlighted portions of MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 that recites “Example 2: The claimed invention in Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) was directed to a system which employs a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor. The prior art (Fuller) used screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations. Fuller used a concrete haunch to transfer the load of the foundation to the screw anchor. The prior art (Gregory) used a push pier for underpinning existing structural foundations. Gregory taught a method of transferring load using a bracket, wherein a metal bracket transfers the foundation load to the push pier. The pier is driven into the ground to support the load. Neither reference showed the two elements of the claimed invention – screw anchor and metal bracket – used together. The court found that “artisans knew that a foundation underpinning system requires a means of connecting the foundation to the load-bearing member” … The nature of the problem to be solved – underpinning unstable foundations – as well as the need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) in combination with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations”.
As can be seen from MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 above, the claimed invention is directed towards “a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor” and the primary reference Fuller discloses only a portion of the applicant’s claimed invention by disclosing the first component (i.e. “a screw anchor”) and a corresponding function (i.e. “for underpinning existing foundations and to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor”) but fails to disclose the portion reciting “and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor”.
The secondary reference Gregory was utilized to remedy the missing aspects of Fuller and similarly only discloses a portion of the applicant’s claimed invention by disclosing the second component (i.e. “a metal bracket”) and a similar corresponding function (i.e. “for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load”).
Even though neither of the Fuller and Gregory reference discloses any of the claimed limitations in full, the court still found the combination to be obvious and concluded that given the nature of the problem to be solved or similar corresponding function, one of ordinary skill in the art would choose an appropriate and compatible component.
In addition, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, In response to applicant's arguments, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The examiner also directs the applicant to the following guidelines for obviousness set forth by the MPEP as seen below:
MPEP 2143, Section l. EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES that recites “Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. … It is important for Office personnel to recognize that when they do choose to formulate an obviousness rejection using one of the rationales suggested by the Supreme Court in KSR and discussed herein, they are to adhere to the guidance provided regarding the necessary factual findings. It remains Office policy that appropriate factual findings are required in order to apply the enumerated rationales properly. The subsections below include discussions of each rationale along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. Some examples use the facts of pre-KSR cases to show how the rationales suggested by the Court in KSR may be used to support a finding of obviousness. The cases cited (from which the facts were derived) may not necessarily stand for the proposition that the particular rationale is the basis for the court’s holding of obviousness, but they do illustrate consistency of past decisions with the lines of reasoning laid out in KSR. Other examples are post-KSR decisions that show how the Federal Circuit has applied the principles of KSR. Cases are included that illustrate findings of obviousness as well as nonobviousness. Note that, in some instances, a single case is used in different subsections to illustrate the use of more than one rationale to support a finding of obviousness. It will often be the case that, once the Graham inquiries have been satisfactorily resolved, a conclusion of obviousness may be supported by more than one line of reasoning”.
MPEP 2143, Section l, Subsection B. Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results that recites “To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components; (2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. … Example 3: The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is set forth above in Example 2 in subsection I.A., above. The prior art showed differing load-bearing members and differing means of attaching the foundation to the member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metal bracket taught in Gregory for Fuller’s concrete haunch for the predictable result of transferring the load.”
MPEP 2143.01 Suggestion or Motivation To Modify the References that recites “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis). Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957-58, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court found an erroneous framing of the motivation inquiry led to an incorrect conclusion of nonobviousness). A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)).”
MPEP 2144, Section lV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE that recites “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)”.
Therefore based on the guidelines for obviousness set forth by the MPEP as indicated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the following:
1. a single prior art reference need not disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention alone and may only disclose portions thereof.
2. substituting comparable elements performing similar functionalities has been determined to be obvious by the courts.
3. there are a number of rationales that can be utilized to determining a finding of obviousness when performing a combination of different prior art references.
4. said motivation and rationale to combine different prior art references may be explicit or implicit and may be based on the background knowledge, creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.
5. said motivation or rationale and purpose does not need to be the same rationale or purpose as those disclosed by the inventor in order for said combination of prior art references to be deemed obvious.
In the instance of the cited prior art combination of Kwon and Lu, and based on the guidelines for obviousness indicated by the MPEP and explanations provided above, Kwon, [0057], [0084] & [0086] already discloses the use of a quiet element corresponding to the restricted TWT in order to protect the restricted SP of the TWT and as such, the secondary reference Lu does not need to disclose the features of the claimed invention that has already been disclosed by Kwon but only needs to disclose the missing aspects of Kwon, which in this instance, is the details of the information included in the rTWT element which comprises a low latency service information and an uplink or downlink service information.
The examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of Lu, [0116] & [0125] seen below:
[0116] The R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the downlink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield. The Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield. A value of 1 or 0 at bit position k in the bitmap may be set to indicate that TID k is classified as latency sensitive traffic stream and MSDUs of TID k are allowed/disallowed to be transmitted in the R-TWT SP(s) indicated by the TWT element on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield.
[0125] Referring to FIG. 8A, R-TWT agreements have been set up on the three links, i.e., Link 1, Link 2 and Link 3, between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD. When no LL TID is mapped to Link 1 due to TID-to-Link mapping update/change, API sends/broadcasts an R-TWT SP Quiet Element on Link 1 to announce an R-TWT SP quiet interval. During the R-TWT SP quiet interval, the R-TWT SPs will be ignored. As shown in FIG. 8A, two R-TWT SP Quiet Elements are sent on Link 1. Similarly, no LL TID is mapped to Link 3 due to TID-to-Link mapping update in this embodiment, three R-TWT SP Quiet Elements are sent on Link 3 by AP3. The R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management (MGMT) frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3. STA1 and STA3 receive the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements and will ignore the R-TWT SPs that overlap with the R-TWT SP quiet intervals. Further, if a time duration of the R-TWT quiet intervals on a link exceeds a predetermined threshold, the R-TWT agreement on this link may be torn down.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Lu seen above, Lu, [0116] discloses the R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate (i.e. reads on wherein the rTWT element comprises) which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams (i.e. reads on at least one of first indication information and reads on wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service) in the downlink direction (i.e. reads on second indication information and reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises a downlink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield and the Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction (i.e. reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield which contrary to the applicant’s arguments, clearly indicates to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize and find obvious the advantage of utilizing the teachings of Lu in order to allow the system to be able to identify the latency type of service as well as the corresponding uplink and downlink direction.
In addition, Lu, [0125] discloses the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management MGMT frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3 which clearly shows an rTWT element that is used to identify the latency type of service and the corresponding uplink or downlink direction as well as disclosing the similar functionality of using of a quiet element and an rTWT element.
And as such, given the guidelines set for obviousness set forth by the MPEP seen above, and the similar comparable components and functionalities disclosed by both Kwon and Lu, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize and find obvious that the invention of Kwon may be modified by the teachings of Lu which together as a whole would then result in the applicant’s claimed invention.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13, 18, 20-21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0132419 herein after referenced as Kwon) in view of LU et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0413331 herein after referenced as Lu).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 18, Kwon discloses:
A signal processing method, performed by an access point device, comprising: and An access point device, comprising: a processor; and a memory having a computer program executable by the processor stored thereon, wherein the processor is configured to: sending a frame, (Kwon, [0050] discloses the management frame may be a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a (re)association response frame, etc. and the management frame may be transmitted (i.e. reads on sending a frame) by an AP MLD to a non-AP MLD on a link via an AP (i.e. reads on performed by an access point device) of the AP MLD, and received by the non-AP MLD from the AP MLD via a non-AP STA of the non-AP MLD; Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD; Kwon, [0044] discloses an AP includes at least one controller and the at least one controller may be implemented in a device that includes a processor; Kwon, [0095]-[0096] discloses the methods described herein may be implemented using software instructions stored on a computer useable storage medium for execution by a computer and discloses examples of non-transitory computer-useable and computer-readable storage media include a random-access memory RAM, a read-only memory ROM, etc.. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as an AP or STA to include a processor, memory and instructions in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
wherein the frame comprises a restricted target wake time (rTWT) element and a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element;
(Kwon, [0057] discloses a management frame indicating and/or including (i.e. reads on the frame comprises) a Channel Switch Announcement CSA element, an extended CSA eCSA element, a Quiet element (i.e. reads on a quiet element), a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time TWT element that includes a restricted access service period SP (i.e. reads on a rTWT); Kwon, [0084] discloses the Quiet element (i.e. reads on quiet element) is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT (i.e. reads on corresponding to the rTWT element) is established; Kwon, [0086] discloses a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD and the Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD that do not support the restricted SP. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the quiet element corresponds to the restricted TWT as it is specifically included in the link where a restricted TWT is established where it may be used to protect the restricted SP of the TWT).
Kwon discloses sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element but fails to explicitly disclose what is included in the rTWT element and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the rTWT element comprises at least one of first indication information and second indication information; wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service; the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service or a downlink service.”
In a related field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
wherein the rTWT element comprises at least one of first indication information and second indication information; wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service; the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service or a downlink service (Lu, [0116] discloses the R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate (i.e. reads on wherein the rTWT element comprises) which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams (i.e. reads on at least one of first indication information and reads on wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service) in the downlink direction (i.e. reads on second indication information and reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises a downlink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield and the Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction (i.e. reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield; Lu, Fig. 7B & [0114] discloses a second format of a Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field of an R-TWT element with TID-to-Link mapping information according to some embodiments of the invention and the Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field further includes a Link ID Bitmap field and a R-TWT Traffic Info field; Lu, [0133] discloses the R-TWT Element, R-TWT SP Quiet Element, TID-to-Link Mapping Element with suspended R-TWT mode indication, and TID-to-Link Mapping Element with termination R-TWT mode indication may be broadcast elements on the links set up between the AP MLD and non-AP MLD; Lu, [0125] discloses the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management MGMT frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3; Lu, [0058] discloses in the negotiation process, a R-TWT request from the first STA is received by the first AP; and a first R-TWT response is sent by the first AP to the first STA to set up the R-TWT agreement on any one or more of the at least one link to which the at least one LL TID has been mapped and in one example, if there are two links between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, Link 1 is set up between the first AP and the first STA, and Link 2 is set up between a second AP and a second STA, the negotiation between the first AP and the first STA may be conducted to set up the R-TWT agreement on Link 1, Link 2 or both).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Lu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to identify the different types of services such as latency sensitive streams in either the uplink and downlink direction (Lu, [0116]) and to be able to set up the negotiation on parameters via multiple different means by either utilizing a single link or every link (Lu, [0058]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element as taught by Kwon) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element, wherein the rTWT element includes additional information indicating the uplink or downlink latency sensitive streams and wherein the frames are transmitted on each link as taught by Lu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element (i.e. as taught by Kwon & Lu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 21, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The access point device according to claim 18 (see claim 18).
wherein the frame comprises one at least one of: (Kwon, [0084] discloses the Quiet element is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT is established; Kwon, [0086] discloses a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD and the Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD that do not support the restricted SP; Kwon, [0057] discloses a management frame indicating and/or including a Channel Switch Announcement CSA element, an extended CSA eCSA element, a Quiet element, a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time TWT element that includes a restricted access service period SP. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or more” and “in the target radio frame, a first ranking order of a first quiet element of the one or more quiet elements is same as a second ranking order of a first rTWT element of the one or more rTWT elements;” and “or the one or more quiet elements each comprises a time offset value; wherein a second rTWT element carrying a time offset subfield, the time offset subfield comprising a target time offset value of a target quiet element corresponding to the second rTWT element”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 23, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The access point device according to claim 18 (see claim 18).
wherein the access point device comprises a (Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “single-link device or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 24, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The access point device according to claim 18 (see claim 18).
wherein: the access point device comprises a multi-link device, (Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD).
and sending the frame comprises at least one of: sending a frame corresponding to each communication link under each communication link with a station; (Lu, [0058] discloses in the negotiation process, a R-TWT request from the first STA is received by the first AP; and a first R-TWT response is sent by the first AP to the first STA to set up the R-TWT agreement on any one or more of the at least one link to which the at least one LL TID has been mapped and in one example, if there are two links between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, Link 1 is set up between the first AP and the first STA, and Link 2 is set up between a second AP and a second STA, the negotiation between the first AP and the first STA may be conducted to set up the R-TWT agreement on Link 1, Link 2 or both; Lu, [0116] discloses the R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the downlink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield and the Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield; Lu, Fig. 7B & [0114] discloses a second format of a Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field of an R-TWT element with TID-to-Link mapping information according to some embodiments of the invention and the Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field further includes a Link ID Bitmap field and a R-TWT Traffic Info field; Lu, [0133] discloses the R-TWT Element, R-TWT SP Quiet Element, TID-to-Link Mapping Element with suspended R-TWT mode indication, and TID-to-Link Mapping Element with termination R-TWT mode indication may be broadcast elements on the links set up between the AP MLD and non-AP MLD; Lu, [0125] discloses the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management MGMT frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or sending radio frame information of each communication link under at least one communication link with the station; wherein the radio frame information comprises the frame and identification information of each target communication link corresponding to the frame, and the identification information comprises at least one of a link identifier (ID) and a link ID set bitmap.” ) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the frame comprises at least one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a multi-link (ML) probe response frame, an association response frame, and a reassociation response frame (Kwon, [0050] discloses the management frame may be a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a (re)association response frame, etc.; Kwon, [0058] discloses a multi-link ML element included in a management frame).
Regarding claim 8, Kwon discloses:
A signal processing method, performed by a station, comprising: receiving a frame, (Kwon, [0050] discloses the management frame may be a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a (re)association response frame, etc. and the management frame may be transmitted (i.e. reads on receiving a frame) by an AP MLD to a non-AP MLD on a link via an AP of the AP MLD, and received by the non-AP MLD from the AP MLD via a non-AP STA (i.e. reads on performed by a station) of the non-AP MLD; Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD).
wherein the frame comprises a restricted target wake time (rTWT) element and a quiet element corresponding to the rTWT element; (Kwon, [0057] discloses a management frame indicating and/or including (i.e. reads on the frame comprises) a Channel Switch Announcement CSA element, an extended CSA eCSA element, a Quiet element (i.e. reads on a quiet element), a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time TWT element that includes a restricted access service period SP (i.e. reads on a rTWT); Kwon, [0084] discloses the Quiet element (i.e. reads on quiet element) is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT (i.e. reads on corresponding to the rTWT element) is established; Kwon, [0086] discloses a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD and the Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD that do not support the restricted SP. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the quiet element corresponds to the restricted TWT as it is specifically included in the link where a restricted TWT is established where it may be used to protect the restricted SP of the TWT).
Kwon discloses sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element but fails to explicitly disclose what is included in the rTWT element and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the rTWT element comprises at least one of first indication information and second indication information; wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service; the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service or a downlink service.”
In a related field of endeavor, Lu discloses:
wherein the rTWT element comprises at least one of first indication information and second indication information; wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service; the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service or a downlink service (Lu, [0116] discloses the R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate (i.e. reads on wherein the rTWT element comprises) which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams (i.e. reads on at least one of first indication information and reads on wherein the first indication information indicates that a service corresponding to the frame comprises a low latency service) in the downlink direction (i.e. reads on second indication information and reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises a downlink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield and the Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction (i.e. reads on the second indication information indicates that the service corresponding to the frame comprises an uplink service) on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield; Lu, Fig. 7B & [0114] discloses a second format of a Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field of an R-TWT element with TID-to-Link mapping information according to some embodiments of the invention and the Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field further includes a Link ID Bitmap field and a R-TWT Traffic Info field; Lu, [0133] discloses the R-TWT Element, R-TWT SP Quiet Element, TID-to-Link Mapping Element with suspended R-TWT mode indication, and TID-to-Link Mapping Element with termination R-TWT mode indication may be broadcast elements on the links set up between the AP MLD and non-AP MLD; Lu, [0125] discloses the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management MGMT frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3; Lu, [0058] discloses in the negotiation process, a R-TWT request from the first STA is received by the first AP; and a first R-TWT response is sent by the first AP to the first STA to set up the R-TWT agreement on any one or more of the at least one link to which the at least one LL TID has been mapped and in one example, if there are two links between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, Link 1 is set up between the first AP and the first STA, and Link 2 is set up between a second AP and a second STA, the negotiation between the first AP and the first STA may be conducted to set up the R-TWT agreement on Link 1, Link 2 or both).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Lu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to identify the different types of services such as latency sensitive streams in either the uplink and downlink direction (Lu, [0116]) and to be able to set up the negotiation on parameters via multiple different means by either utilizing a single link or every link (Lu, [0058]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element as taught by Kwon) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element, wherein the rTWT element includes additional information indicating the uplink or downlink latency sensitive streams and wherein the frames are transmitted on each link as taught by Lu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of sending a frame that includes a quiet element and an rTWT element (i.e. as taught by Kwon & Lu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 8, (see claim 8).
wherein the frame comprises one at least one of: (Kwon, [0084] discloses the Quiet element is included in a beacon frame transmitted by an AP of an AP MLD on a link where a restricted TWT is established; Kwon, [0086] discloses a Quiet element may be included in a management frame on a first link with scheduling information of a restricted SP for a first AP of an AP MLD and the Quiet element may be used to protect the restricted SP from being accessed by non-AP STAs of a non-AP MLD associated with the AP MLD that do not support the restricted SP; Kwon, [0057] discloses a management frame indicating and/or including a Channel Switch Announcement CSA element, an extended CSA eCSA element, a Quiet element, a Quiet Channel element, and/or an insertion or a Target Wake Time TWT element that includes a restricted access service period SP. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or more” and “in the target radio frame, a first ranking order of a first quiet element of the one or more quiet elements is same as a second ranking order of a first rTWT element of the one or more rTWT elements;” and “or the one or more quiet elements each comprises a time offset value; wherein a second rTWT element carrying a time offset subfield, the time offset subfield comprising a target time offset value of a target quiet element corresponding to the second rTWT element”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 11, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 8, (see claim 8).
wherein the station comprises a (Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “single-link device or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 12, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 8, (see claim8).
wherein: the station comprises a multi-link device, (Kwon, [0041] discloses an access point AP multi-link device MLD of a WLAN, and may exchange data with at least one associated non-AP MLD such as a station STA MLD).
and receiving the target radio frame comprises at least one of: receiving a respective target radio frame corresponding to each communication link under each communication link with an access point; (Lu, [0058] discloses in the negotiation process, a R-TWT request from the first STA is received by the first AP; and a first R-TWT response is sent by the first AP to the first STA to set up the R-TWT agreement on any one or more of the at least one link to which the at least one LL TID has been mapped and in one example, if there are two links between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD, Link 1 is set up between the first AP and the first STA, and Link 2 is set up between a second AP and a second STA, the negotiation between the first AP and the first STA may be conducted to set up the R-TWT agreement on Link 1, Link 2 or both; Lu, [0116] discloses the R-TWT DL/UL TID Bitmap subfields in the R-TWT Traffic Info field are set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the downlink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield and the Restricted TWT UL TID Bitmap subfield is set to indicate which TID(s) is identified by the TWT scheduling APs or the TWT scheduled STAs as latency sensitive traffic streams in the uplink direction on the links which are indicated in the Link ID Bitmap subfield; Lu, Fig. 7B & [0114] discloses a second format of a Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field of an R-TWT element with TID-to-Link mapping information according to some embodiments of the invention and the Broadcast R-TWT Parameter Set field further includes a Link ID Bitmap field and a R-TWT Traffic Info field; Lu, [0133] discloses the R-TWT Element, R-TWT SP Quiet Element, TID-to-Link Mapping Element with suspended R-TWT mode indication, and TID-to-Link Mapping Element with termination R-TWT mode indication may be broadcast elements on the links set up between the AP MLD and non-AP MLD; Lu, [0125] discloses the R-TWT SP Quiet Elements may be included in management MGMT frames sent from AP1/AP3 to STA 1/STA3. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or receiving radio frame information of each communication link under at least one communication link with the station; wherein the radio frame information comprises the target radio frame and identification information of each target communication link corresponding to the target radio frame, and the identification information comprises at least one of a link identifier (ID) and a link ID set bitmap.” ) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 8, (see claim 8).
wherein the frame comprises at least one of a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a multi-link (ML) probe response frame, an association response frame, and a reassociation response frame (Kwon, [0050] discloses the management frame may be a beacon frame, a probe response frame, a (re)association response frame, etc.; Kwon, [0058] discloses a multi-link ML element included in a management frame).
Regarding claim 20, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
A station, comprising: a processor; and a memory having a computer program executable by the processor stored thereon, (Kwon, [0046] discloses each STA includes at least one controller and the at least one controller may be implemented within a processor; Kwon, [0095]-[0096] discloses the methods described herein may be implemented using software instructions stored on a computer useable storage medium for execution by a computer and discloses examples of non-transitory computer-useable and computer-readable storage media include a random-access memory RAM, a read-only memory ROM, etc.).
wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 8 (see claim 8).
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0132419 herein after referenced as Kwon) in view of LU et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0413331 herein after referenced as Lu) and further in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US Patent Publication 2016/0374112 herein after referenced as Aster).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 25, Kwon in view of Lu discloses:
The signal processing method according to claim 1, (see claim 1) and The access point device according to claim 18 (see claim 18).
Kwon in view of Lu discloses an AP sending different types of frames but fails to explicitly disclose a determination as to what type of frame to send is made prior to sending the frames and therefore fails to disclose “wherein before sending the frame, the method comprises: determining the frame.”
In a related field of endeavor, Aster discloses:
wherein before sending the frame, the method comprises: determining the frame (Aster, [0048] discloses an AP determining to transmit a SU or MU frame associated with a traffic type identifies a set of EDCA parameters for an access category that is based at least in part on the traffic type).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kwon in view of Lu to incorporate the teachings of Aster for the purpose of providing the system with a means to determining which frame to transmit (Aster, [0048]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an AP sending different types of frames as taught by Kwon) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of an AP sending different types of frames, wherein a determination is made as to which type of frame is to be sent prior to the sending as taught by Aster) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an AP sending different types of frames (i.e. as taught by Kwon & Aster) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
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 MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights