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 representative field arguments on 08/17/2026 with respect to independent claim 17 has been considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant presented arguments on Pages 6-8 that the combination of Seok and Guo does not specifically teach (1) receiving, by the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from the second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, a trigger frame on the second link, and (2) AP-assisted medium synchronization of the second link.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
First, with respect to the claimed trigger-frame reception on the second link, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Guo discloses an AP MLD and a non-AP MLD communicating over respective multiple links ([0102]) and receiving BSRP, BQRP, or BFRP trigger frames on a link ([0033]-[0035], [0139]). Guo’s designation of the trigger-receiving link as a ‘first link’ is relative terminology and does not require that such link correspond to the claimed first link. Thus, in the proposed combination, Guo’s trigger-receiving link corresponds to the claimed second link.
Second, applicant’s argument that the combination of Seok and Guo does not teach the claimed AP-assisted medium synchronization of the second link is not persuasive. Seok discloses adjusting timing based on information received from a peer STA affiliated with a different device ([0068]), cross-link MU-RTS/CTS signaling for timing alignment ([0069]-[0070]), and synchronizing wireless links that are not synchronized ([0086]-[0087]). Thus, Seok teaches multi-link synchronization using assistance from another device, while Guo teaches the trigger-frame mechanism for medium synchronization ([0033]-[0035], [0140]-[0141]). Accordingly, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches the claimed AP-assisted medium synchronization of the second link.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026, page 8, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the
Therefore, as shown above the combination Seok and Guo also teaches the limitation of independent claim 26.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33, line 1, "claim 33" should be .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 17-21 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2021/0315025 A1; hereinafter “Seok”), in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0209600 A1; hereinafter “Guo”).
Regarding claim 17, Seok teaches a method (FIG. 1) for use in a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) (FIG. 1 STA 155), the method comprising:
transmitting, by a first station (STA) (FIG. 1 transceiver 160) affiliated with the non-AP MLD to a first access point (AP) (FIG. 1 transceiver 110) affiliated with an AP MLD (FIG. 1 AP 105), on a first link (5GHz), a request for AP assistance including information indicating a second link (2.4GHz) of a second STA (FIG. 1 transceiver 165) affiliated with the non-AP MLD requiring medium synchronization ([0051]-[0052] disclose a non-AP multi-link device STA 155 including transceiver 160 operating on a first link (5GHz) and transceiver 165 on a second link (2.4GHz) exchanging data and information with an AP MLD 105 including transceiver 110, [0071] discloses obtaining TXOPs simultaneously on multiple links using synchronized back-off operation, [0091] discloses obtaining a TXOP on a first wireless link in synchronization with obtaining a TXOP over a second wireless link, thereby indicating that the second link of the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD requires medium synchronization).
However, Seok does not teach receiving, by the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from a second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, on the second link, a trigger frame.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches receiving, by the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from a second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, on the second link, a trigger frame ([0102] discloses that a non-AP MLD includes STA1 and STA2 communicating with corresponding APs over link 1 and link 2, [0033]-[0035] disclose that the first multi-link device receives a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, and [0139] further discloses that the first multi-link device receives a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP Trigger frame, or a BFRP Trigger frame on the first link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a multi-link system as taught by Guo within the system of Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve channel access efficiency for enhanced system performance (Guo [0141]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches wherein the medium synchronization of the second link is achieved based on the received trigger frame ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0140]-[0141] disclose that reception on the first link affects mediumSyncDelay operation on a second link, thereby indicating that medium synchronization of the second link is achieved based on the received trigger frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a multi-link system as taught by Guo within the system of Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve channel access efficiency for enhanced system performance (Guo [0141]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches wherein the trigger frame enables the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to regain wireless medium synchronization on the second link ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0140]-[0141] disclose that reception on the first link affects mediumSyncDelay operation and channel contention on a second link such that the non-STR MLD may again perform common channel contention on the second link, thereby indicating that the trigger frame enables the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to regain wireless medium synchronization on the second link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a multi-link system as taught by Guo within the system of Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve channel access efficiency for enhanced system performance (Guo [0141]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Seok teaches wherein the request for AP assistance is a request for the AP to provide synchronization assistance to enable the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to synchronize with the second AP affiliated with the AP MLD ([0051]-[0052] disclose a non-AP multi-link device STA 155 exchanging data and information with an AP MLD 105, [0071] discloses synchronized TXOP operation on multiple links, and [0091] discloses obtaining a TXOP on a first wireless link in synchronization with a second wireless link, thereby indicating that the request for AP assistance is a request for synchronization assistance).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches transmitting a frame on the second link in response to the trigger frame ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0139] discloses that after receiving the trigger frame the first multi-link device replies with/transmits a corresponding BSR frame, BQR frame, or NDP frame, thereby indicating transmitting a frame in response to the trigger frame).
Regarding claim 26, Seok teaches a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) (FIG. 1 STA 155) comprising:
a processor ([0018] a processor operable to: perform a multi-link operation using first wireless STA over the first wireless link and the second wireless STA over the second wireless link) configured to operate a first station (STA) (FIG. 1 transceiver 160) affiliated with the non-AP MLD and a second STA (FIG. 1 transceiver 165) affiliated with the non-AP MLD;
a transmitter (FIG. 1 transceiver 160), coupled to the processor, configured to transmit, from the first STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to a first access point (AP) (FIG. 1 transceiver 110) affiliated with an AP MLD (FIG. 1 AP 105), on a first link (5GHz), a request for AP assistance including information indicating a second link (2.4GHz) of the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD requiring medium synchronization ([0051]-[0052] disclose a non-AP multi-link device STA 155 including transceiver 160 operating on a first link (5GHz) and transceiver 165 on a second link (2.4GHz) exchanging data and information with an AP MLD 105 including transceiver 110, [0071] discloses obtaining TXOPs simultaneously on multiple links using synchronized back-off operation, [0091] discloses obtaining a TXOP on a first wireless link in synchronization with obtaining a TXOP over a second wireless link, thereby indicating that the second link of the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD requires medium synchronization).
However, Seok does not teach a receiver, coupled to the processor, configured to receive, at the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from a second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, on the second link, a trigger frame.
In an analogous art, Guo teaches a receiver (FIG. 11 transceiver unit 11), coupled to the processor (FIG. 11 processing unit 12), configured to receive, at the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD from a second AP affiliated with the AP MLD, on the second link, a trigger frame ([0102] discloses that a non-AP MLD includes STA1 and STA2 communicating with corresponding APs over link 1 and link 2, [0033]-[0035] disclose that the first multi-link device receives a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, and [0139] further discloses that the first multi-link device receives a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP Trigger frame, or a BFRP Trigger frame on the first link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a trigger frame as taught by Guo within the system of Seok. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve channel access efficiency with a higher transmission and throughput for the system performance (Guo [0099]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches wherein the medium synchronization is achieved based on the received trigger frame ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0140]-[0141] disclose that reception on the first link affects mediumSyncDelay operation on a second link, thereby indicating that medium synchronization of the second link is achieved based on the received trigger frame).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches wherein the trigger frame enables the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to regain wireless medium synchronization on the second link ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0140]-[0141] disclose that reception on the first link affects mediumSyncDelay operation and channel contention on a second link such that the non-STR MLD may again perform common channel contention on the second link, thereby indicating that the trigger frame enables the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to regain wireless medium synchronization on the second link).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Seok teaches wherein the request for AP assistance is a request for the AP to provide synchronization assistance to enable the second STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD to synchronize with the second AP affiliated with the AP MLD ([0051]-[0052] disclose a non-AP multi-link device STA 155 exchanging data and information with an AP MLD 105, [0071] discloses synchronized TXOP operation on multiple links, and [0091] discloses obtaining a TXOP on a first wireless link in synchronization with a second wireless link, thereby indicating that the request for AP assistance is a request for synchronization assistance).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Seok and Guo teaches, specifically Guo teaches wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit a frame on the second link in response to the trigger frame ([0033]-[0035] disclose receiving a BSRP trigger frame, a BQRP trigger frame, or a BFRP trigger frame on the first link, [0139] discloses that after receiving the trigger frame the first multi-link device replies with/transmits a corresponding BSR frame, BQR frame, or NDP frame, thereby indicating transmitting a frame in response to the trigger frame).
Claims 22-25 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok, in view of Guo, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0279375 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Seok and Guo does not teach wherein the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap ([0087] discloses a DL-UNITDATAX.request including parameters for multi-link operations, including a Preferred Link ID, [0088] and Table 3 disclose that the Preferred Link ID identifies a preferred link, and [0091]-[0093] disclose configuring communication on a plurality of links, thereby indicating that the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a DL-UNITDATAX.request as taught by Kim within the system of Seok and Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase channel efficiency with a higher throughput for the system performance (Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Seok, Guo and Kim, specifically Kim teaches wherein the Link ID bitmap indicates a link identifier of the second link ([0087] discloses a DL-UNITDATAX.request including a Preferred Link ID, [0088] and Table 3 disclose that the Preferred Link ID identifies a preferred link, and [0098] discloses that a MAC header may include information on an ID of a receiving communication node allocated for each link, thereby indicating that the Link ID bitmap indicates a link identifier of the second link).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Seok and Guo does not teach wherein the Link ID bitmap is included in an A-Control header.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the Link ID bitmap is included in an A-Control header ([0095] discloses that data of a PPDU includes a MAC header having control fields, [0098] discloses that the MAC header may include information on an ID of a receiving communication node allocated for each link, and [0112] discloses identifying the receiving communication node ID from the MAC header included in the PPDU, thereby indicating that the Link ID bitmap is included in an A-control header).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a MAC header as taught by Kim within the system of Seok and Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase channel efficiency with a higher throughput for the system performance (Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Seok, Guo and Kim, specifically Kim teaches wherein the A-Control header is included in a frame ([0094]-[0095] disclose that each PPDU transmitted through different links includes data, and the data includes a MAC header and a payload, and [0098] discloses that the data may be received as a frame in the MAC layer, thereby indicating that the A-control header is included in a frame).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Seok and Guo does not teach wherein the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap that indicates a link identifier of the second link.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap ([0087] discloses a DL-UNITDATAX.request including parameters for multi-link operations, including a Preferred Link ID, [0088] and Table 3 disclose that the Preferred Link ID identifies a preferred link, and [0091]-[0093] disclose configuring communication on a plurality of links, thereby indicating that the request for AP assistance comprises a Link ID bitmap) that indicates a link identifier of the second link ([0098] discloses that a MAC header may include information on an ID of a receiving communication node allocated for each link, thereby indicating that the Link ID bitmap indicates a link identifier of the second link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a DL-UNITDATAX.request as taught by Kim within the system of Seok and Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase channel efficiency with a higher throughput for the system performance (Kim [0006]).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Seok, Guo and Kim, specifically Kim teaches wherein the Link ID bitmap is included in an A-Control header ([0095] discloses that data of a PPDU includes a MAC header having control fields, [0098] discloses that the MAC header may include information on an ID of a receiving communication node allocated for each link, and [0112] discloses identifying the receiving communication node ID from the MAC header included in the PPDU, thereby indicating that the Link ID bitmap is included in an A-control header).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Seok, Guo and Kim, specifically Kim teaches wherein the A-Control header is included in a frame ([0094]-[0095] disclose that each PPDU transmitted through different links includes data, and the data includes a MAC header and a payload, and [0098] discloses that the data may be received as a frame in the MAC layer, thereby indicating that the A-control header is included in a frame).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Seok and Guo does not teach wherein the non-AP MLD is a non- simultaneous transmit receive (NSTR) non-AP MLD.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the non-AP MLD is a non- simultaneous transmit receive (NSTR) non-AP MLD ([0079] discloses that if separation between a first link and a second link is not sufficient, the non-AP MLD transmitting a frame on the first link may not simultaneously receive a frame on the second link, thereby indicating that the non-AP MLD is a non-simultaneous transmit receive (NSTR) non-AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a DL-UNITDATAX.request as taught by Kim within the system of Seok and Guo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase channel efficiency with a higher throughput for the system performance (Kim [0006]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0314292 A1 (Seok et al.) discloses electronic systems capable of transmitting a group addressed frame that identifies an MLD according to an MLD MAC address.
US 2021/0337564 A1 (Kwon et al.) discloses a method for wireless communications involves, at a first station (STA), transmitting a first Physical Layer Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) that includes a first frame to a second STA.
US 2024/0196460 A1 (KIM et al.) discloses a method and device for acquiring information on links between MLDs in a wireless LAN system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE IM whose telephone number is (571)270-1955. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, UN C CHO can be reached on 571-272-7919. 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.
/T.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights