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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of copending Application No. US 2024/0224360 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the application with claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the copending Application, claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the application are anticipated by the copending Application claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in that claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the copending Application contain all the limitations of claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the application. Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending Application and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2023/0403598 A1) hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 1 – LU discloses - A communication device capable of establishing a plurality of links in parallel with another communication device, the communication device comprising: refer to paragraph [0048] - In order to increase the network capacity and reduce the network delay, a Multi-Link Aggregation (MLA) technology is introduced. In a system supporting the MLA technology, some traffic may be transmitted on at least two links. A device supporting MLA is a Multi-Link Device (MLD), also, paragraph [0050] - In the embodiments of the present disclosure, the AP MLD may include a plurality of APs, and the Non-AP MLD may include a plurality of STAs. A plurality of links may be formed between the APs in the AP MLD and the STAs in the Non-AP MLD. Data communication may be performed between the APs in the AP MLD and the corresponding STAs in the Non-AP MLD via the respective links, also, paragraph [0062] - In some embodiments of the present disclosure, a plurality of links are established between the first MLD and the second MLD. The respective devices in the first MLD and the second MLD may perform data communication via the corresponding link, also, Figure 2 and paragraph [0063] - For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the first MLD is an AP MLD, the second MLD is a Non-AP MLD. AP1 in the first MLD and STA1 in the second MLD may perform data communication via Link 1, and AP2 in the first MLD and STA2 in the second MLD may perform data communication via Link 2, and so on.
a receiving unit configured to receive a request for a TID (Traffic identifier) and link assignment, the TID indicating a priority of data, refer to paragraph [0006] - The first TID-to-link mapping response frame includes TID-to-link mapping response information, and the TID-to-link mapping response information includes a TID-to-link mapping parameter and/or type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0008] - The first TID-to-link mapping response frame includes TID-to-link mapping response information, and the TID-to-link mapping response information includes a TID-to-link mapping parameter and/or type indication information indicating a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0055] - By setting a plurality of request types or a plurality of response types, the requesting MLD may transmit an appropriate request type of TID-to-Link mapping request according to its own mapping requirements, and the responding MLD may use a corresponding type of TID-to-link mapping response according to the TID-to-Link mapping request of the requesting MLD and its own mapping requirements, which facilitates to satisfy the TID-to-link mapping requirements of different scenarios, also, paragraphs [0064] to [0066] - In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the first TID-to-link mapping response frame includes TID-to-link mapping response information. The TID-to-link mapping response information includes at least one of: [0065] type indication information indicating that the first TID-to-link mapping response frame is a TID-to-link mapping response frame, and/or a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame; or [0066] a TID-to-link mapping parameter, and Tables 1 and 7.
a transmitting unit configured to transmit a response to the request received by the receiving unit, refer to paragraph [0020] - With the above technical solutions, by setting a plurality of response types of TID-to-link mapping response frames and/or a plurality of request types of TID-to-Link mapping request frames, a TID-to-Link mapping requester may perform a TID-to-Link mapping request with an appropriate type of TID-to-Link mapping request frame according to particular scenarios; and accordingly, a TID-to-Link mapping responder may perform a TID-to-Link mapping response with an appropriate type of TID-to-Link mapping response frame according to particular scenarios. This facilitates to satisfy requirements of different scenarios, and improve the negotiation efficiency for TID-to-Link mapping setup, also, paragraph [0064] to [0066] - In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the first TID-to-link mapping response frame includes TID-to-link mapping response information. The TID-to-link mapping response information includes at least one of: [0065] type indication information indicating that the first TID-to-link mapping response frame is a TID-to-link mapping response frame, and/or a response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame; or [0066] a TID-to-link mapping parameter
wherein, in a case where a first request is accepted and a second request is unaccepted among requests received by the receiving unit, the transmitting unit transmits a response indicating that the first request is accepted and the second request is unaccepted, refer to paragraph [0083] - if the responding MLD expects to set up a TID-to-link mapping based on other TID-to-link mapping parameter(s), the responding MLD may reply the requesting MLD with other TID-to-link mapping parameter(s). In this case, the requesting MLD may accept the other TID-to-link mapping parameter(s) determined by the TID-to-link mapping negotiation, also, paragraph [0082] - For example, if the responding MLD determines that the required TID-to-link mapping parameter cannot be satisfied, the responding MLD may deny setting up the TID-to-link mapping; or if the responding MLD expects to set up a TID-to-link mapping based on other TID-to-link mapping parameter(s), the responding MLD may reply the requesting MLD with other TID-to-link mapping parameter(s). In this case, the requesting MLD may deny accepting the TID-to-link mapping negotiation, also, paragraphs [0087] and [0088] - [0087] a first response type, the first response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame indicating that the first MLD accepts a TID-to-link mapping requested by the first TID-to-link mapping request frame; [0088] a second response type, the second response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame indicating that the first MLD denies setting up the TID-to-link mapping requested by the first TID-to-link mapping request frame, also, paragraph [0111] - Alternatively, in some embodiments, the sixth response type of TID-to-link mapping response frame also indicates that only when the second MLD transmits a TID-to-link mapping request frame carrying a required TID-to-link mapping parameter indicated by the TID-to-link mapping response frame, it is possible for the first MLD to accept setup of the TID-to-link mapping, also, paragraph [0168] - In some implementations, when the requesting MLD transmits a TID-to-link mapping request frame carrying a required TID-to-link mapping parameter to the responding MLD, the responding MLD may reply the requesting MLD with a Solicited Accept TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0169] - In some other implementations, when the requesting MLD transmits a TID-to-link mapping request frame carrying a required TID-to-link mapping parameter to the responding MLD, the responding MLD may reply the requesting MLD with a Denied TID-to-link mapping request frame for denying setting up the TID-to-link mapping requested by the requesting MLD. The responding MLD may deny setting up the TID-to-link mapping requested by the requesting MLD in the case where the required TID-to-link mapping parameter cannot be satisfied, and Table 8
Regarding claim 2 – Lu discloses claim 1. Lu discloses wherein, in a case where the first request is accepted and the second request is unaccepted among requests received by the receiving unit, the transmitting unit transmits the response in which a status code different from a status code set in the response in a case where all the requests received by the receiving unit are accepted is set, refer to paragraph [0155] – In some other embodiments, the TID-to-link mapping request frame may indicate the request type by a Status Code field in the Action field. Similarly, the TID-to-link mapping response frame may indicate the response type by the Status Code field in the Action field, also, paragraph [0156] – Table 7 is an example of definition of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping request frame or the TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0157] – Table 8 is an example of definition of different response types by different values of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping response frame.
Regarding claim 3 – Lu discloses claim 1. Lu discloses wherein, in a case where the first request is accepted and the second request is unaccepted among requests received by the receiving unit, the transmitting unit transmits the response in which a status code different from a status code set in the response in a case where all the requests received by the receiving unit are rejected is set, refer to paragraph [0155] – In some other embodiments, the TID-to-link mapping request frame may indicate the request type by a Status Code field in the Action field. Similarly, the TID-to-link mapping response frame may indicate the response type by the Status Code field in the Action field, also, paragraph [0156] – Table 7 is an example of definition of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping request frame or the TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0157] – Table 8 is an example of definition of different response types by different values of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping response frame.
Regarding claim 4 – Lu discloses claim 1. Lu discloses wherein, in a case where the first request is accepted and the second request is unaccepted among requests received by the receiving unit, the transmitting unit transmits the response not including information related to a TID and link assignment corresponding to the first request, and including information related to a TID and link assignment corresponding to the second request, refer to paragraph [0155] – In some other embodiments, the TID-to-link mapping request frame may indicate the request type by a Status Code field in the Action field. Similarly, the TID-to-link mapping response frame may indicate the response type by the Status Code field in the Action field, also, paragraph [0156] – Table 7 is an example of definition of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping request frame or the TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0157] – Table 8 is an example of definition of different response types by different values of the Status Code in the TID-to-link mapping response frame, also, paragraph [0169] - In some other implementations, when the requesting MLD transmits a TID-to-link mapping request frame carrying a required TID-to-link mapping parameter to the responding MLD, the responding MLD may reply the requesting MLD with a Denied TID-to-link mapping request frame for denying setting up the TID-to-link mapping requested by the requesting MLD. The responding MLD may deny setting up the TID-to-link mapping requested by the requesting MLD in the case where the required TID-to-link mapping parameter cannot be satisfied,
Regarding claim 5 – Lu discloses claim 1. Lu discloses wherein the request received by the receiving unit is an Association Request, and the response transmitted by the transmitting unit is an Association Response, refer to paragraphs [0291] to [0296] - an association request frame, also, paragraphs [0306] to [0311] - an association response frame
Regarding claim 6 – Lu discloses claim 5. Lu discloses wherein the Association Request and the Association Response include a TID-To-Link Mapping element indicating a TID and link assignment, refer to paragraph [0296] - The frame type indication information indicates that the first TID-to-link mapping request frame is a TID-to-link mapping request frame, and the request type indication information indicates the request type of the first TID-to-link mapping request frame, also, paragraph [0311] - The frame type indication information indicates that the first TID-to-link mapping response frame is a TID-to-link mapping response frame, and the response type indication information indicates the response type of the first TID-to-link mapping response frame.
Regarding claim 7 – Please refer to claim 1 for the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8 - Please refer to claim 1 for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9 - Please refer to claim 1 for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10 – LU discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as each unit of the communication device according to Claim 1, refer to paragraph [0013] - the present disclosure provides a Multi-Link Device (MLD). The MLD includes a processor, and a memory having a computer program stored thereon. The processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored on the memory, to perform the method according to the first aspect as described above, also, paragraph [0014] - the present disclosure provides a Multi-Link Device (MLD). The MLD includes a processor, and a memory having a computer program stored thereon. The processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored on the memory, to perform the method according to the second aspect as described above, also, paragraph [0017] - the present disclosure provides a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium has a computer program stored thereon. The computer program causes a computer to perform the method according to any one of the first aspect to the second aspect as described above. For the remaining elements of claim 10, please refer to the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (US 11,924,823 B2) discloses multi-link device association and reassociation.
Chu et al. (US 11,602,002 B2) discloses method and apparatus for multi-link operations.
Shirakawa et al. (US 2023/0276516 A1) radio communication device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
10 February 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465B