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 .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 6/3/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 17, and 19 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Applicant argues that Lu does not teach “wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations.” Applicant asserts that the disclosure of Lu is materially different from the amended claim language because Lu describes a device that is already listening on multiple enabled links. Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 recites that the claimed “secondary channel” is not a spatial-stream configuration but “comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. Applicant asserts that Lu’s initial control frame initiates or supports a frame exchange on a link and enables a multiple-spatial-stream configuration on that link; it does not instruct eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations to switch to a secondary channel different from a primary channel used by another wireless station. Applicant also argues that Yu and/or Kim do not cure these deficiencies. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. 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., the claimed “secondary channel” is not a spatial-stream configuration) 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). With regard to the teachings of the prior art, Lu teaches (see step 505 of Fig. 5) that at least one initial control frame may be transmitted by an AP over a first wireless channel (Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0069]). The Examiner would also like to note that initial control frame transmission is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4 (Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0069]). As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as switching to a secondary channel (Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]). The initial control frame may thus be interpreted as indicating that eMLSR SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel. Such channel switching is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4 (Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]). Lu may thus be interpreted as teaching transmitting, by an access point to one or more wireless stations, one or more initial control frames (ICFs) indicating that enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) secondary channel (SC) capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel. However, although Lu teaches that channels may be busy (As can be seen in at least Fig. 1, channels may be busy; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0042], [0050], [0054]), Lu does not specifically disclose wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. As can be seen in at least Fig. 3 of Kim, Kim teaches that Non-AP MLD 1, Non-AP MLD 2, and Legacy STA may all use the “y GHz” channel, which may be interpreted as a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations (Kim; Fig. 3; [0067]-[0070]). Other channels (e.g., “x GHz” and “z GHz”) may be interpreted as secondary channels that comprise a channel different from the “y GHz” channel (i.e., a primary channel) (Kim; Fig. 3; [0067]-[0070]). The Examiner would also like to note that at least Figs. 7-8B and 11A-11B also teach that channels (e.g., the first link and/or the second link) may be busy because they are used by at least one other wireless station (Kim; Figs. 7-8B and 11A-11B; [0104], [0112], [0135]), and such channels may also be interpreted as comprising a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. Kim thus teaches wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that Lu and Kim do not teach “wherein the user information field comprises a resource unit index and a bandwidth index, and wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel.” Applicant asserts that information regarding a number of links, a number of radios, or a number of spatial streams is not a resource unit index and a bandwidth index in a user information field. Applicant also argues that Lu and Kim do not disclose using the claimed resource unit index and bandwidth index to indicate that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel sued by at least one other wireless station. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index” are quite broad, and that such claim limitations may be interpreted as information indicating resource and bandwidth information. If Applicant intends that “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index” be comprised of more specific information, the Examiner recommends that Applicant amend the claim language to further define “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index.” Kim teaches that multi-link (ML) capability information may be exchanged between the STA MLD and the AP MLD during the association procedure (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). The ML capability information may include information on the number of links and/or information on the number of radios supported by the MLD (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). When the STA MLD and/or AP MLD supports the EMLSR mode, the ML capability information may include information on the number of spatial streams (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). Such information may be interpreted as comprising a resource unit index and a bandwidth index. When such information indicates that both the STA MLD and the AP MLD support the EMSLR mode, the STA MLD and the AP MLD may perform communication using such a mode which involves switching radio chains to other channels (e.g., to the secondary channel) (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). Lu and Kim thus teach that the user information field comprises a resource unit index and a bandwidth index, and wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel. The Examiner would also like to note that the claim language “wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel” does not explicitly require that any “eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations” actually “switch to the secondary channel” in response to receiving “the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index,” and that such claim language may be interpreted as an intended future use of “the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index.” The prior art is thus not required to teach “wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel” (although it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art does provide such teachings as is discussed in at least the above paragraph). Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Lu and Kim do not teach “wherein communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) or a block acknowledgment (BA) frame; and transmitting, to the at least one wireless station after transmitting downlink data on the secondary channel and prior to receiving the BA frame, a multi-user (MU) block acknowledgment request (BAR) frame.” Applicant asserts that claim 8 recites, in the context of communicating on the claimed secondary channel, transmitting a MU-BAR frame to the at least one wireless station after transmitting downlink data on the secondary channel and prior to receiving the BA frame from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel.” Applicant argues that Kim does not teach such secondary channel communication because Lu does not disclose an ICF indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. With regard to Applicant’s argument that Kim does not teach such secondary channel communication because Lu does not disclose an ICF indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station, the Examiner would like to note that such an argument appears to be substantially similar to Applicant’s arguments with regard to the independent claims discussed above. Please see the Examiner’s response to the arguments pertaining to claims 1, 12, and 17 above for a detailed discussion of Lu and Kim’s teachings regarding an ICF indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station. With regard to the language of claim 8, Kim teaches that control frames may include an acknowledgment (ACK) frame, block ACK request (BAR) frame, block ACK (BA) frame, power saving (PS)-Poll frame, request-to-send (RTS) frame, clear-to-send (CTS) frame, and the like (Kim; Fig. 3; [0084], [0105]-[0109], [0112]-[0114]). The EMLSR STA MLD may receive data and transmit a reception response frame (e.g., block ACK), which is an immediate response to the data (Kim; Fig. 3; [0084], [0105]-[0109], [0112]-[0114]). A block acknowledgment request (BAR) frame may be interpreted as requesting a block acknowledgment (BA) frame and thus as being transmitted prior to receiving the BA frame. Control frames are also described as pertaining to multiple users (MU) and also as being transmitted/received using multiple spatial streams through multiple antennas (Kim; Fig. 3; [0084], [0105]-[0109], [0112]-[0114], [0135]-[0136]). Kim thus teaches that communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) or a block acknowledgment (BA) frame; and transmitting, to the at least one wireless station after transmitting downlink data on the secondary channel and prior to receiving the BA frame, a multi-user (MU) block acknowledgment request (BAR) frame. Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that Lu and Kim do not teach “wherein communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: transmitting, to the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, a trigger frame; and receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, data via a trigger-based physical layer packet data unit (TB PPDU) format.” Applicant asserts that capability information such as multi-link capability information, information regarding a number of links, a number of radios, or a number of spatial streams is not a resource unit index and a bandwidth index in a trigger-frame user information field. Applicant also argues that Kim and Lu do not disclose switching an eMLSR-SC capable wireless station to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. With regard to Applicant’s argument that Lu and Kim do not disclose switching an eMLSR-SC capable wireless station to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station, the Examiner would like to note that such an argument appears to be substantially similar to Applicant’s arguments with regard to the independent claims discussed above. Please see the Examiner’s response to the arguments pertaining to claims 1, 12, and 17 above for a detailed discussion of Lu and Kim’s teachings regarding switching an eMLSR-SC capable wireless station to a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station. With regard to the language of claim 9, Lu teaches that the STA may transmit physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) in response to the received data frame (non-initial control frame) from the AP of the AP MLD (Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042]). Such a received data frame may thus be interpreted as a trigger frame. Lu thus teaches transmitting, to the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, a trigger frame; and receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, data via a trigger-based physical layer packet data unit (TB PPDU) format. As was also discussed with regard to claim 6 above, the claim limitations “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index” are quite broad. Such claim limitations may be interpreted as information indicating resource and bandwidth information. If Applicant intends that “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index” be comprised of more specific information, the Examiner recommends that Applicant amend the claim language to further define “a resource unit index” and “a bandwidth index.” Kim teaches that multi-link (ML) capability information may be exchanged between the STA MLD and the AP MLD (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). The ML capability information may include information on the number of links and/or information on the number of radios supported by the MLD (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). When the STA MLD and/or AP MLD supports the EMLSR mode, the ML capability information may include information on the number of spatial streams (Kim; [0105]-[0106]). Such information may be interpreted as a resource unit index and a bandwidth index. Communication may be interpreted as being performed using such resources. Kim may thus be interpreted as teaching that the frame includes a user information field that comprises a resource unit index and a bandwidth index, wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates one or more resources for data transmission; and receiving data on the indicated one or more resources. Lu and Kim may thus be interpreted as teaching “wherein communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: transmitting, to the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, a trigger frame; and receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, data via a trigger-based physical layer packet data unit (TB PPDU) format.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claims have been amended to recite “transmitting, by an access point to one or more wireless stations, one or more initial control frames (ICFs) indicating that enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) secondary channel (SC) capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel, wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations.” Such claim language requires transmitting one or more ICFs to “one or more wireless stations,” which may be interpreted as transmitting ICF(s) to just one wireless station. However, the claim language “wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” appears to recite the existence of another wireless station, and it is unclear if the existence of such an additional station is also intended to require that the “one or more initial control frames (ICFs)” also be transmitted to such an additional station contrary to the claim language “transmitting, by an access point to one or more wireless stations, one or more initial control frames (ICFs).” The Examiner would also like to note that the claims do not appear to recite any requirement that all of “the one or more wireless stations” use the claimed “primary channel” (e.g., for reception of the ICFs). The claims instead simply require that “at least one other wireless station” use such “a primary channel,” which allows for an interpretation wherein the “one or more wireless stations” that receive the one or more ICFs use a different channel than “at least one other wireless station.” Such potential use of a different channel by “at least one other wireless station” also makes it unclear whether “at least one other wireless station” is intended to be required to receive the one or more ICFs. Furthermore, the claims also recite “receiving, by the access point from at least one wireless station of the one or more wireless stations, an immediate response (IR) frame.” The claim limitation “at least one wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” has conflicting antecedent basis with “at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations.” It is therefore unclear if “at least one wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” is intended to be required to be different from “at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations,” and thus it is unclear if the IR frame may be received from “at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” or if the IR frame must instead be received from one of the “one or more wireless stations” that received the “one or more initial control frames (ICFs).” Claims 1 and 12 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim language “transmitting, by an access point to one or more wireless stations, one or more initial control frames (ICFs)” as not requiring transmission of ICFs to “at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” because such transmission is not explicitly recited. The Examiner is also interpreting “at least one wireless station of the one or more wireless stations” as potentially being the same or different from “at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations.” Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-16, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2022/0294583, provided by Applicant, Lu hereinafter) in view of Kim (US 2024/0073952). Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lu teaches a method and an apparatus (Access point (AP); Lu; Figs. 1-6; [0069]-[0070], [0074]-[0075]), comprising: a memory (The AP may be comprised of memory; Lu; Figs. 1-6; [0074]-[0075]); and at least one processor in communication with the memory (The AP may be comprised a processor in communication with the memory; Lu; Figs. 1-6; [0074]-[0075]) and configured to cause a device to: transmit, to one or more wireless stations, one or more initial control frames (ICFs) (As can be seen in at least step 505 of Fig. 5, at least one initial control frame may be transmitted by an AP over a first wireless channel. The Examiner would also like to note that initial control frame transmission is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0069]) indicating that enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) secondary channel (SC) capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as switching to a secondary channel. The initial control frame may thus be interpreted as indicating that eMLSR SC capable wireless stations are to switch to a secondary channel. Such channel switching is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]); receive, from at least one wireless station of the one or more wireless stations, an immediate response (IR) frame that indicates that the at least one wireless station has switched to the secondary channel (As can be seen in at least step 515 of Fig. 5, the STA operating in EML mode may transmit a response frame in addition to switching to the 2x2 spatial stream. Such a response frame may be interpreted as an immediate response (IR) frame that indicates that the at least one wireless station has switched to the secondary channel. Such a response frame is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]); and communicate on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station (As can be seen in at least step 520 of Fig. 5, the STA may perform a frame exchange sequence with the AP using the 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station. Such communication is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0072]). However, although Lu teaches that channels may be busy (As can be seen in at least Fig. 1, channels may be busy; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0042], [0050], [0054]), Lu does not specifically disclose wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. Kim teaches wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, Non-AP MLD 1, Non-AP MLD 2, and Legacy STA may all use the “y GHz” channel, which may be interpreted as a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations. Other channels (e.g., “x GHz” and “z GHz”) may be interpreted as secondary channels that comprise a channel different from the “y GHz” channel (i.e., a primary channel). The Examiner would also like to note that at least Figs. 7-8B and 11A-11B also teach that channels (e.g., the first link and/or the second link) may be busy because they are used by at least one other wireless station, and such channels may also be interpreted as comprising a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other wireless station of the one or more wireless stations; Kim; Figs. 3, 7-8B, and 11A-11B; [0067]-[0070], [0104], [0112], [0135]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 2, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Lu further teaches the one or more ICFs are transmitted on a primary channel and the secondary channel (As can be seen in at least Figs. 1-4, initial control frames (e.g., MU-RTS frame (R)) may be transmitted on more than one channel (i.e., a primary channel and the secondary channel); Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0049]-[0052]). Regarding claim 3, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 2. Kim further teaches the primary channel has an 80 megahertz (MHz) bandwidth and the secondary channel has an 80 MHz bandwidth (The MLD may transmit and receive frames in multiple links by use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (e.g., 80 MHz+80 MHz); Kim; [0069]); or wherein the primary channel has a 160 MHz bandwidth and the secondary channel has a 160 MHz bandwidth (The MLD may perform communications using a 160 MHz bandwidth in the 5 GHz band, and may perform communications using a 160 MHz bandwidth in a 6 GHz band; Kim; [0070]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 4, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Lu further teaches communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises the access point transmitting, to the at least one wireless station, downlink (DL) multi-user (MU) physical layer packet data units (PPDUs) via DL Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) or via DL MU multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream and may receive data from the AP. Such data transmitted using multiple links is described as physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs). The ICF prior to such data transmission is also described as an MU-RTS frame. Such data may thus be interpreted as being transmitted using DL MU PPDUs. Transmitting data from the AP using a 2x2 spatial stream may be interpreted as transmitting, to the at least one wireless station, downlink (DL) multi-user (MU) physical layer packet data units (PPDUs) via DL MU multi-input-multi-output (MIMO). Such transmission is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0070]-[0072]). Regarding claim 5, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Lu further teaches at least one of the one or more ICFs includes a user information field indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as switching to a secondary channel. The initial control frame may thus be interpreted as including information indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel, and such information may be interpreted as a user information field. Such channel switching is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0070]-[0071]). Regarding claim 6, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 5. Kim further teaches the user information field comprises a resource unit index and a bandwidth index, and wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel (ML capability information may be exchanged between the STA MLD and the AP MLD. The ML capability information may include information on the number of links and/or information on the number of radios supported by the MLD. When the STA MLD and/or AP MLD supports the EMLSR mode, the ML capability information may include information on the number of spatial streams. Such information may be interpreted as a resource unit index and a bandwidth index. When such information indicates that both the STA MLD and the AP MLD support the EMSLR mode, the STA MLD and the AP MLD may perform communication using such a mode which involves switching radio chains to other channels (e.g., to the secondary channel). Kim thus teaches that the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel. The Examiner would also like to note that the claim language “wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel” does not explicitly require that any “eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations” actually “switch to the secondary channel” in response to receiving “the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index,” and that such claim language may be interpreted as an intended future use of “the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index.” Using such an interpretation, the prior art is not required to teach “wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel.”; Kim; [0105]-[0106]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 7, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Lu further teaches at least one of the one or more ICFs includes padding to allow eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations to switch to the secondary channel (Non-AP MLD 220 switches back to the listening operation on enabled links (e.g., Channel 1, Channel 2, and/or other wireless links) after the frame exchange has ended and a switching delay time has passed. In this way, a new frame exchange can be initiated using one of the enabled links when the link is available to reduce latency and improve wireless performance; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0053]). Regarding claim 8, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: receiving, by the access point from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) or a block acknowledgment (BA) frame (Control frames may include an acknowledgment (ACK) frame, block ACK request (BAR) frame, block ACK (BA) frame, power saving (PS)-Poll frame, request-to-send (RTS) frame, clear-to-send (CTS) frame, and the like. The EMLSR STA MLD may receive data and transmit a reception response frame (e.g., block ACK), which is an immediate response to the data; Kim; Fig. 3; [0084], [0105]-[0109], [0112]-[0114], [0135]-[0136]); and transmitting, by the access point to the at least one wireless station after transmitting downlink data on the secondary channel and prior to receiving the BA frame, a multi-user (MU) block acknowledgment request (BAR) frame (Control frames may include an acknowledgment (ACK) frame, block ACK request (BAR) frame, block ACK (BA) frame, power saving (PS)-Poll frame, request-to-send (RTS) frame, clear-to-send (CTS) frame, and the like. The EMLSR STA MLD may receive data and transmit a reception response frame (e.g., block ACK), which is an immediate response to the data. A block acknowledgment request (BAR) frame may be interpreted as requesting a block acknowledgment (BA) frame and thus as being transmitted prior to receiving the BA frame. Control frames are also described as pertaining to multiple users (MU) and also as being transmitted/received using multiple spatial streams through multiple antennas; Kim; Fig. 3; [0084], [0105]-[0109], [0112]-[0114], [0135]-[0136]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 9, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1. Lu further teaches communicating on the secondary channel with the at least one wireless station comprises: transmitting, to the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, a trigger frame (The STA may transmit physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) in response to the received data frame (non-initial control frame) from the AP of the AP MLD. Such a received data frame may thus be interpreted as a trigger frame; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042]); and receiving, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, data via a trigger-based physical layer packet data unit (TB PPDU) format (The STA may transmit physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) in response to the received data frame (non-initial control frame) from the AP of the AP MLD; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042]). Kim further teaches the frame includes a user information field that comprises a resource unit index and a bandwidth index, wherein the resource unit index in combination with the bandwidth index indicates one or more resources for data transmission (ML capability information may be exchanged between the STA MLD and the AP MLD. The ML capability information may include information on the number of links and/or information on the number of radios supported by the MLD. When the STA MLD and/or AP MLD supports the EMLSR mode, the ML capability information may include information on the number of spatial streams. Such information may be interpreted as a resource unit index and a bandwidth index; Kim; [0105]-[0106]); and receiving data on the indicated one or more resources (ML capability information may be exchanged between the STA MLD and the AP MLD. The ML capability information may include information on the number of links and/or information on the number of radios supported by the MLD. When the STA MLD and/or AP MLD supports the EMLSR mode, the ML capability information may include information on the number of spatial streams. Communication may be interpreted as being performed using such resources; Kim; [0105]-[0106]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 10, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 9. Kim further teaches end-of-frame padding is used to align an end point of the data from the at least one wireless station with data received from another wireless station of the one or more wireless stations on a primary channel (Communication nodes may perform a channel state monitoring operation (e.g., carrier sensing operation) during a predetermined period (e.g., short interframe space (SIFS) or PCF IFS (PIFS)), and when the channel state is determined to be idle during the predetermined period (e.g., SIFS or PIFS), the communication node may perform transmission. The Examiner would also like to note that the “to align” language may interpreted as an intended use of the padding, and that the claims do not appear to positively recite any communication with other wireless stations; Kim; Figs. 5 and 8A-8B; [0087]-[0090], [0112]-[0114]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 11, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 9. Kim further teaches multiple traffic identifier (MTID) aggregation is used to combine higher priority quality of service (QOS) data for latency sensitive applications with the data (Data frames may be classified into a quality of service (QoS) data frame and a non-QoS data frame. The QoS data frame may refer to a data frame for which transmission according to a QoS is required, and the non-QoS data frame may indicate a data frame for which transmission according to a QoS is not required. As can be seen in at least Tables 1-2, higher priority QoS traffic may have multiple identifiers (e.g., AC_BK, AC_BE, AC_VI, AC_VO). Data frames classified into QoS data frames may thus be interpreted as frames wherein multiple traffic identifier (MTID) aggregation is used to combine higher priority quality of service (QOS) data for latency sensitive applications; Kim; Fig. 5; Tables 1-2; [0084], [0087]-[0092]) to align an end point of the data from the at least one wireless station with data received from another wireless station of the one or more wireless stations on a primary channel (Communication nodes may perform a channel state monitoring operation (e.g., carrier sensing operation) during a predetermined period (e.g., short interframe space (SIFS) or PCF IFS (PIFS)), and when the channel state is determined to be idle during the predetermined period (e.g., SIFS or PIFS), the communication node may perform transmission. The Examiner would also like to note that the “to align” language may interpreted as an intended use of the multiple traffic identifier aggregation, and that the claims do not appear to positively recite any communication with other wireless stations; Kim; Figs. 5 and 8A-8B; [0087]-[0092], [0112]-[0114]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 17, Lu teaches a device (Enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) station (STA); Lu; Figs. 1-6; [0069]-[0070], [0074]-[0075]), comprising: at least one antenna (The wireless device may be comprised of a radio that is described as communicating using multiple antennas; Lu; Fig. 6; [0074]-[0075]); at least one radio coupled to the at least one antenna (The wireless device may be comprised of a radio coupled to the at least one antenna; Lu; Fig. 6; [0074]-[0075]); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one radio (The wireless device may be comprised a processor in communication with the radio; Lu; Figs. 6; [0074]-[0075]); wherein the processor is configured to cause the device to: receive, from an access point, an initial control frame (ICF) indicating that the device is to switch to a secondary channel (As can be seen in at least step 505 of Fig. 5, at least one initial control frame may be received from an AP over a first wireless channel. The Examiner would also like to note that initial control frame transmission/reception is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0069]), wherein the device is enhanced multilink single-radio (eMLSR) secondary channel (SC) capable (The STA may operate in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode using more than one channel, which may be interpreted as eMLSR SC capable; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]); switch to the secondary channel (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, the STA operating in EML mode may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as switching to a secondary channel. Such channel switching is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]); transmit, to the access point, an immediate response (IR) frame indicating the switch to the secondary channel (As can be seen in at least step 515 of Fig. 5, the STA operating in EML mode may transmit a response frame in addition to switching to the 2x2 spatial stream. Such a response frame may be interpreted as an immediate response (IR) frame indicating the switch to the secondary channel. Such a response frame is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0071]); and communicate on the secondary channel with the access point (As can be seen in at least step 520 of Fig. 5, the STA may perform a frame exchange sequence with the AP using the 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as communicating on the secondary channel with the access point. Such communication is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0072]). However, although Lu teaches that channels may be busy (As can be seen in at least Fig. 1, channels may be busy; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0042], [0050], [0054]), Lu does not specifically disclose wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other device. Kim teaches wherein the secondary channel comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other device (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, Non-AP MLD 1, Non-AP MLD 2, and Legacy STA may all use the “y GHz” channel, which may be interpreted as a primary channel used by at least one other device. Other channels (e.g., “x GHz” and “z GHz”) may be interpreted as secondary channels that comprise a channel different from the “y GHz” channel (i.e., a primary channel). The Examiner would also like to note that at least Figs. 7-8B and 11A-11B also teach that channels (e.g., the first link and/or the second link) may be busy because they are used by at least one other wireless station, and such channels may also be interpreted as comprising a secondary channel that comprises a channel different from a primary channel used by at least one other device; Kim; Figs. 3, 7-8B, and 11A-11B; [0067]-[0070], [0104], [0112], [0135]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling the use of a non-contiguous bandwidth extension scheme (Kim; [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 18, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 17. Lu further teaches to communicate on the secondary channel with the access point, the at least one processing element is further configured to cause the device to receive, from the access point, downlink (DL) multi-user (MU) physical layer packet data units (PPDUs) via DL Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) or via DL MU multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream and may receive data from the AP. Receiving data from the AP using a 2x2 spatial stream may be interpreted as receiving, from the access point, downlink (DL) multi-user (MU) physical layer packet data units (PPDUs) via DL MU multi-input-multi-output (MIMO). Such transmission is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0070]-[0072]). Regarding claim 20, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 17. Lu further teaches the ICF comprises a multi-user (MU) request-to-send (RTS) frame or a buffer status report poll (BSRP) frame (Initial control frames may comprise a MU-RTS frame or a BSRP frame; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0005], [0050], [0069]).
Claim(s) 13-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2022/0294583, provided by Applicant, Lu hereinafter) and Kim (US 2024/0073952) in view of Yu et al. (US 2024/0113760, Yu hereinafter). Regarding claim 13, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12. Lu further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to cause the device to: transmit, to the one or more wireless stations, frames on a primary channel and the secondary channel (Frames may be transmitted, to one or more wireless stations, on a primary and a secondary channel; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0069]-[0072]); and receive, from the at least one wireless station on the secondary channel, a frame (Frames may be received, from one or more wireless stations, on the secondary channel; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0069]-[0072]). However, Lu and Kim do not specifically disclose the transmitted frames include null data packet announcement (NDPA) frames; the transmitted frames include null data packet (NDP) frames; and the received frame includes a compressed beamforming frame and/or a compressed channel quality index (CQI) frame. Yu teaches the transmitted frames include null data packet announcement (NDPA) frames (NDPA frames may be transmitted; Yu; Fig. 10; [0383], [0392]-[0393]); the transmitted frames include null data packet (NDP) frames (NDP frames may be transmitted; Yu; Fig. 10; [0372], [0386]); and the received frame includes a compressed beamforming frame and/or a compressed channel quality index (CQI) frame (A compressed beamforming/CQI frame may be received; Yu; Fig. 10; [0389]-[0393]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yu regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu and Kim regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by supporting the use of large beamforming/channel quality indication reports (Yu; [0393]). Regarding claim 14, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12. Lu teaches frames may include one or more ICFs (As can be seen in at least step 505 of Fig. 5, at least one initial control frame may be transmitted by an AP over a first wireless channel. The Examiner would also like to note that initial control frame transmission is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0069]). However, Lu and Kim do not specifically disclose at least one of the frames includes a user information field that includes a frame check sum (FCS) field. Kim teaches at least one of the frames includes a user information field that includes a frame check sum (FCS) field (Frames may include an FCS field; Yu; Fig. 9; [0038], [0367], [0407]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yu regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu and Kim regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by supporting the use of large beamforming/channel quality indication reports (Yu; [0393]). Regarding claim 15, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12. Lu further teaches at least one of the one or more ICFs comprises a multi-user (MU) request-to-send (RTS) frame (Initial control frames may comprise a MU-RTS frame; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0005], [0050], [0069]), and wherein the MU-RTS frame comprises one or more user information fields (As can be seen in at least steps 510-515 of Fig. 5, a STA operating in enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML) mode (i.e., an eMLSR SC capable wireless station) may switch to the link using a 2x2 spatial stream, which may be interpreted as switching to a secondary channel. The initial control frame may thus be interpreted as including information indicating that eMLSR-SC capable wireless stations are to switch to the secondary channel, and such information may be interpreted as a user information field. Such channel switching is also described in connection with Figs. 1-4; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0070]-[0071]). However, Lu and Kim do not specifically disclose each user information field of the one or more user information fields includes a check sum (FCS) field. Yu teaches each user information field of the one or more user information fields includes a check sum (FCS) field (Frames may include an FCS field; Yu; Fig. 9; [0038], [0367], [0407]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yu regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu and Kim regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by supporting the use of large beamforming/channel quality indication reports (Yu; [0393]). Regarding claim 16, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 12. Lu further teaches at least one of the one or more ICFs comprises a buffer status report poll (BSRP) frame (Initial control frames may comprise a BSRP frame; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0005], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0069]-[0071]), and wherein the BSRP frame comprises one or more user information fields (Initial control frames (e.g., a BSRP frame) may be interpreted as comprising information that may be interpreted as one or more user information fields; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0005], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0069]-[0071]). However, Lu and Kim do not specifically disclose each user information field of the one or more user information fields includes a check sum (FCS) field. Yu teaches each user information field of the one or more user information fields includes a check sum (FCS) field (Frames may include an FCS field; Yu; Fig. 9; [0038], [0367], [0407]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yu regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu and Kim regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by supporting the use of large beamforming/channel quality indication reports (Yu; [0393]). Regarding claim 19, Lu and Kim teach the limitations of claim 17. Lu further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to cause the device to: receive, from the access point, frames on the secondary channel (Frames may be received by one or more wireless stations on at least a secondary channel; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0069]-[0072]); and transmit, to the access point on the secondary channel, a frame (Frames may be transmitted, to the AP, on the secondary channel; Lu; Figs. 1-5; [0041]-[0042], [0069]-[0072]). However, Lu and Kim do not specifically disclose the transmitted frames include null data packet announcement (NDPA) frames; the transmitted frames include null data packet (NDP) frames; and the received frame includes a compressed beamforming frame and/or a compressed channel quality index (CQI) frame. Yu teaches the received frames include null data packet announcement (NDPA) frames (NDPA frames may be received; Yu; Fig. 10; [0383], [0392]-[0393]); the received frames include null data packet (NDP) frames (NDP frames may be received; Yu; Fig. 10; [0372], [0386]); and the transmitted frame includes a compressed beamforming frame and/or a compressed channel quality index (CQI) frame (A compressed beamforming/CQI frame may be transmitted; Yu; Fig. 10; [0389]-[0393]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Yu regarding multi-link communication with the teachings as in Lu and Kim regarding multi-link communication. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by supporting the use of large beamforming/channel quality indication reports (Yu; [0393]).
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 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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights