DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 05/29/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are on the amended features raising a new scope and do not apply to any of the references being used in the instant office action, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0217494, “Li”) in view of Ko et al. (US 2024/0422706, “Ko”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Li unless otherwise mentioned.
Li comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method of a first station (STA) associated with a multi-link device (MLD),the method comprising:
performing a backoff operation in a first link of non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) link pair ([0171 and Fig. 6c] “the first link is a link 1, the second link is a link 2, the transmit MLD is an AP, the receive MLD is a STA, the backoff start moment is earlier than the start moment of the second PPDU, and the initial value of the backoff counter is 7.” Note that the claimed NSTR link pair will be discussed in view of Ko.);
determining that a backoff counter associated with the backoff operation reaches 0 in the first link as a results of the backoff operation ([0173 and Fig. 6c] “the transmit MLD performs the backoff procedure on the first link, and the backoff counter decreases to 0 at t2 (namely, the second moment).”);
maintaining the backoff counter at 0 without transmission of a first frame in the first link based on the backoff counter being 0 (See Fig. 6c from t2 to t5. The backoff counter stays at 0 and no transmissions occurs in Link 1.); and
transmitting the first frame in the first link based on the backoff counter being 0 ([0172 and Fig. 6c] “The first PPDU is a PPDU 11′, and a BA 11′ is a response frame of the PPDU 11′.” See Fig. 6c for transmitting BA 11’) and a transmission opportunity (TXOP) being obtained in a second link belonging to the NSTR link pair (See Fig. 6c in Link 2. TXOP is obtained while the backoff counter stays at 0, [0120] “The first condition includes: (1) A backoff counter of a first link is 0, and (2) A second transmission frame is located in a TXOP on a second link.”, and [0131] “when the backoff counter of the first link decreases to 0, the channel of the first link may be accessed for transmission, and the second transmission frame may be sent in the TXOP on the second link”).
It is noted that while disclosing a link pair for transmission based on a counter and a TXOP, Li does not specifically teach about a NSTR link pair. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ko as follows;
a pair of NSTR link pair ([Ko, 0292] “when an MLD transmits PPDUs in multiple links, start time sync may be performed. The MLD may be an MLD operating in the NSTR link pair.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Li by using the features of Ko in order to provide efficient multilink aggregations for faster data rates and new applications such that “the processor receives a frame transmitted from one of one or more stations (STAs) through a second STA operating in the second link, resets a medium sync delay timer for application of a medium sync delay of the second STA on the basis of the received frame” [Ko, 0011].
Regarding claim 8, it is a MLD claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “at least one processor” ([0140] “The operations performed by each of the stations and access point of the multi-link network may be performed by a “processing circuit””), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0217494, “Li”) in view of Ko et al. (US 2024/0422706, “Ko”) and further in view of Jang et al. (US 11,871,447, “Jang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Naribole unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, it is noted that while disclosing a link pair for transmission based on a counter and a TXOP, Naribole does not specifically teach about maintaining a backoff counter at zero until a TXOP obtained in another link. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Jang as follows;
the method of claim 1 and the MLD of claim 8, respectively, wherein the backoff counter is maintained at 0 until the TXOP is obtained in the second link ([Jang, claim 1] “determining, by the first STA, whether to initiate transmission on the first link based on a back-off counter of the first STA and a condition related to the second STA, wherein based on the back-off counter of the first STA reaching zero (0) and the condition related to the second STA being that the second STA obtains a transmission opportunity on the second link”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Naribole by using the features of Ko in order to properly handle the interference constraints of NSTR link pairs such that “performing channel access on a first link and a second link; determining whether to transmit a first physical protocol data unit (PPDU) based on a channel access result on the first link and a channel access result on the second link” [Jang, Col. 1; lines 57-61].
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the method of claim 1 and the MLD of claim 8, respectively, wherein the TXOP in the second link is obtained by a second STA associated with the MLD ([Jang, claim 1] “the condition related to the second STA being that the second STA obtains a transmission opportunity on the second link”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Jang are the same as for claim 3.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0217494, “Li”) in view of Ko et al. (US 2024/0422706, “Ko”) and further in view of Chu et al. (US 2021/0266891, “Chu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Naribole unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, it is noted that while disclosing a link pair for transmission based on a counter and a TXOP, Naribole does not specifically teach about synchronizing a start time across links. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Chu as follows;
the method of claim 1 and the MLD of claim 8, respectively, wherein a start time of the first frame in the first link is synchronized with a start time of a second frame transmitted by a second STA associated with the MLD in the second link ([Chu, 0052] “the MLD with the NSTR capability may be a multi-link station device that has a non-simultaneous transmission and reception capability (NSTR STA MLD) which may also perform a separate backoff in each link (e.g., link1 and link2), in which each link has a primary channel (e.g., primary 20 MHz channel). In such an embodiment, the MLD with the NSTR capability may transmit PPDUs on multiple links with the same start time where the transmission on the link (e.g., link1) whose backoff counter becomes zero early may be deferred.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Naribole by using the features of Chu in order to implement a robust NSTR transmission scheme such that “maintaining, at the NSTR STA MLD, at least one of a frame exchange and a link state on multiple links with the AP MLD that has at least one of the simultaneous transmission capability and the STR capability” [Chu, 0003].
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the method of claim 1 and the MLD of claim 8, respectively, wherein an end time of the first frame in the first link is synchronized with an end time of a second frame transmitted by a second STA associated with the MLD in the second link ([Chu, 0052] “maintaining, at the NSTR STA MLD, at least one of a frame exchange and a link state on multiple links with the AP MLD that has at least one of the simultaneous transmission capability and the STR capability”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Chu are the same as for claim 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the method of claim 6 and the MLD of claim 13, respectively, wherein one or more padding bits are added to at least one of the first frame or the second frame for synchronization of the end time of the first frame and the end time of the second frame ([Chu, 0069] “an MPDU delimiter may be used as padding to fill the responding frame, allowing responding frames to have an aligned transmission end time on multiple links and subsequent PPDUs to have an aligned transmission start time on multiple links.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights