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, filed 07/08/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 12-17, 21-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cherian (Pub No 2200014576) further in view of Sekiya (Pub No 20230090228).
Regarding claim 1,
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations.
The examiner relies on newly cited Cherian in view of Sekiya to teach the limitations.
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) 1-3, 12-13 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian (Pub No 20200014576) further in view of Sekiya (Pub No 20230090228)
Regarding claim 1 and 12,
Cherian teaches a method of a first device, the method comprising: a processor, wherein the processor causes the first device to:
Performing a monitoring operation for receiving a first frame from a second device within a configured transmission opportunity (TXOP); (interpreted as For example, a transmitting STA may transmit a data PPDU 915-a on the data channel 905-a to the receiving STA, see para [0116] also see on-going txop, see para [0119])
in response to the first reception response frame not being received, transmitting a second frame to the second device, indicating a failure related to a reception of the first frame (interpreted as In some examples, the receiving STA may not successfully receive or decode the data from the transmitting STA (e.g., due to interference, signal corruption, etc.), see para [0118])
However Cherian does not teach a field for indicating failure.
Sekiya teaches field for indicating failure (interpreted as The Block Ack Bitmap field is a field indicating reception history information of a data frame transmitted by (an access point included in) a wireless base station and received by (a station included in) a wireless terminal (i.e., information indicating whether or not the data frame was successfully received) by a bitmap format which assigns one bit per data frame, see para [0193])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the negative ack taught by Cherian with the ack field as taught by Hwang with the motivation for having a specific location for indicating the fault/failure.
Regarding claim 2,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the failure includes interference with the monitoring operation. (interpreted as In some examples, the receiving STA may not successfully receive or decode the data from the transmitting STA (e.g., due to interference, signal corruption, etc.), see para [0118])
Regarding claim 3 and 13,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a retransmission operation of the first frame is performed by the second device in response to the field indicating that the failure has occurred. (interpreted as The transmitting STA may receive the NACK message 930, may identify the lost frames, and may queue the lost frames for retransmission during the on-going transmission opportunity (TxOp) or during a subsequent TxOp, see para [0119])
Claim(s) 4-5, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian (Pub No 20200014576) further in view of Sekiya (Pub No 20230090228) and Hwang (Pub No 20120144265)
Regarding claim 4 and 14,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the field is a flag indicating whether the failure has occurred.
Hwang teaches wherein the field is a flag indicating whether the failure has occurred. (interpreted as a transmitting unit for transmitting the frame, wherein the error indicating field includes at least one of a first flag indicating the presence/absence of an error in the transport packet, see para [0017])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the negative ack taught by Cherian with the flag for failure as taught by Hwang with the motivation being a known in the art alternative for indicating the fault/failure.
Regarding claim 5 and 17,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the field is one of block ack request (BAR) or access point assist request (AAR) (interpreted as GCR-MU block acknowledgement request (BAR) 710 to request feedback information from one or more of the receiving STAs. AP 105-f may transmit the GCR-MU BAR 710 on a broadcast resource unit (e.g., a control channel, management channel, or both). In some examples, each receiving STA may monitor the broadcast resource unit, detect the GCR-MU BAR 710, and transmit feedback information to AP 105-f in response, see para [0106])
Claim(s) 6-7, 15-16, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian (Pub No 20200014576) further in view of Sekiya (Pub No 20230090228) and Chang (Pub No 20230164663)
Regarding claim 6 and 15,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach the first frame is a block ack frame for a data frame that is transmitted from the first device to the second device.
Chang teaches the first frame is a block ack frame for a data frame that is transmitted from the first device to the second device. (interpreted as non-AP MLD 12 transmits a block acknowledgment (BA) frame 408 over the link 141, see para [0016])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frame taught by Cherian with the block ack frame as taught by Chang with the motivation being a known in the art alternative frame type for transmitting information.
Regarding claim 7 and 16,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the first device is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) non access point(non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) and the second device is an access point (AP) MLD)
Chang teaches wherein the first device is a non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) non access point(non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) and the second device is an access point (AP) MLD) (interpreted as non-AP MLD 12 is insufficient, e.g., the two radio circuits use 5G and 6G channels, respectively, the transmissions on the link 141 and the link 142 may interfere with each other, and therefore, the non-AP MLD 12 may adopt the NSTR mode to perform transmissions with the AP MLD 10. In the NSTR mode, the non-AP MLD, see para [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cherian with specific devices the as taught by Chang with the motivation being to perform the failure indication in a various different systems.
Regarding claim 21 and 22,
Cherian teaches the method of claim 2, however does not teach wherein the interference includes in-device coexistence interference.
Chang teaches wherein the interference includes in-device coexistence interference. (interpreted as non-AP MLD 12 is insufficient, e.g., the two radio circuits use 5G and 6G channels, respectively, the transmissions on the link 141 and the link 142 may interfere with each other, and therefore, the non-AP MLD 12 may adopt the NSTR mode to perform transmissions with the AP MLD 10. In the NSTR mode, the non-AP MLD, see para [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Cherian with specific devices the as taught by Chang with the motivation being to perform the failure indication in a various different systems.
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 BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights