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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 06/16/2026.
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 19, 21-22 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 7, 15 are currently amended.
Claims 13-14, 18, 20 are canceled.
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 19, 21-22 are rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 15-16, 19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojan Chitrakar et al (US 20250261259 A1) in view of Geonjung Ko et al (US 20230262768 A1).
For Claim 1, Chitrakar discloses a communication method (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0051, lines 1-4, that both the originator and recipient support multi-link TS and multi-link BA and have indicated a capability in the Multi-link TS and Block Ack field in the multi-link capability element), comprising:
determining, by an access point (AP) that supports multi-link communication, a multi-station block acknowledgement message (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0056, lines 9-13, generates and transmits a multi-link block acknowledgement frame 534 on one of the plurality of frequency bands 206 acknowledging the signal frames 536a, 536b, 536c received on the plurality of frequency bands 204, 206, 208); and
sending, by the AP and in a first link, the multi-station block acknowledgement message to a second station (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0053, lines 6-12, that Upon receiving the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 from the multi-link originator 302, the multi-link recipient 304 transmits the multi-link Block Ack 534 on the same link on which the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 was received to indicate that the multi-link recipient 304 successfully received QoS Data A-MPDUs 536a and 536b. Chitrakar explains, in ¶ 0062, lines 1-5, that Although in this example, the multi-link ADDBA Request 810 is transmitted by the multi-link originator 302 to the multi-link recipient 304, if the multi-link TS setup 510 was for uplink traffic, the multi-link ADDBA Request would be transmitted by the multi-link recipient 304 to the multi-link originator 302. Chitrakar shows in Figure 5, that the multi-link originator 302 is an AP Multi-link Device),
the second station supports multi-link communication with the AP, and the first link is a connection that the first station establishes block acknowledgement feedback with the AP (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0074, lines 12-16, that In some deployments Link One 1302 (e.g., the 2.4 GHz band) may be primarily used to exchange management and control frames such as the Multi-link Block Ack Request frames 1308 and the Multi-link BlockAck frames 1310 and may be known as a Primary link).
Examiner notes that Chitrakar’s recitation in ¶ 0074 of using the first link [i.e., the 2.4 GHz band] is consistent with Applicant’s specification which states “For pre-802.11be STA, the sending of the ADDBA request frame needs to be performed in the link (the first link or Link1) in step 120, i.e., the BA feedback is performed in the link in which the ADDBA request frame is sent” (see spec ¶ 0044).
Chitrakar fails to expressly teach that the first station supports single-link communication with the AP; wherein multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links.
However, Ko, in the analogous art, discloses wherein the first station supports single-link communication with the AP (Ko teaches, in ¶ 0403, that An operation of a non-STR soft AP multi-link device with a legacy station or a single-link station may be restricted to be performed only in a mandatory link ... The single-link station may be a station incapable of operating in multiple links); wherein multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links (Ko shows, in FIG. 10, that the AP MLD establishes [bidirectional] multi-links (i.e., Link1 and Link 2) with the Non-AP MLD1 (i.e., the second station). AP MLD also establishes a [bidirectional] link with the Non MLD STA3). The link that the AP establishes with the Non MLD STA3 is single-link or mandatory link.
Ko also states, in ¶ 0357, that Referring to FIG. 35A, AP1 belonging to the AP MLD may perform a frame transmission or reception operation with multiple terminals connected to the AP. For example, AP1 may simultaneously transmit downlink frames to STA1-1, STA2-1, and STA3 by using an OFDMA operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Chitrakar with the mandatory link taught in Ko. The motivation is to enable AP-MLD to communicate with a legacy station and/or a single-link station.
For Claim 3, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, further comprising: receiving, in the first link, an add block acknowledgement request message from the first station (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0043, that Block Ack agreement for corresponding TIDs also needs to be performed via an Add Block Ack (ADDBA) Request/Response exchange).
For Claim 4, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, further comprising: receiving, in the first link or an other link different from the first link, an add block acknowledgement request message from the second station (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0054, that The Block Ack is also setup across multiple links using a single Multi-link ADDBA frame exchange 522, 524 on any one link. In addition, in accordance with present embodiments, a consolidated Multi-link BlockAck frame 534 acknowledges a multi-link aggregated transmission, a multi-link BlockAck frame 544 may be used to acknowledge transmission in another link).
For Claim 5, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, wherein the first link or the other link is a link where a traffic identifier is mapped (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0121, that transmit frames of a Traffic Identifier (TID) on one or more links to the second multi-link device based on the block acknowledgement agreement, wherein the first plurality of stations are configured to share a common transmit buffer).
For Claims 7, 9-11, please refer to the rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, above.
For Claim 15, Chitrakar discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor[[,]]; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0119, that FIG. 27, the multi-link device 2700 may include circuitry 2714, radio transmitter 2702, radio receiver 2704 and multiple antennas 2712, controller 2706), wherein the processor is configured to: comprising:
determine, by an access point (AP) that supports multi-link communication, a multi- station block acknowledgement message (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0056, lines 9-13, generates and transmits a multi-link block acknowledgement frame 534 on one of the plurality of frequency bands 206 acknowledging the signal frames 536a, 536b, 536c received on the plurality of frequency bands 204, 206, 208); and
send, by the AP and in a first link, the multi-station block acknowledgement message to a second station (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0053, lines 6-12, that Upon receiving the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 from the multi-link originator 302, the multi-link recipient 304 transmits the multi-link Block Ack 534 on the same link on which the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 was received to indicate that the multi-link recipient 304 successfully received QoS Data A-MPDUs 536a and 536b. Chitrakar explains, in ¶ 0062, lines 1-5, that Although in this example, the multi-link ADDBA Request 810 is transmitted by the multi-link originator 302 to the multi-link recipient 304, if the multi-link TS setup 510 was for uplink traffic, the multi-link ADDBA Request would be transmitted by the multi-link recipient 304 to the multi-link originator 302. Chitrakar shows in Figure 5, that the multi-link originator 302 is an AP Multi-link Device),
the second station supports multi-link communication with the AP, and the first link is a connection that the first station establishes block acknowledgement feedback with the AP (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0074, lines 12-16, that In some deployments Link One 1302 (e.g., the 2.4 GHz band) may be primarily used to exchange management and control frames such as the Multi-link Block Ack Request frames 1308 and the Multi-link BlockAck frames 1310 and may be known as a Primary link).
Examiner notes that Chitrakar’s recitation in ¶ 0074 of using the first link [i.e., the 2.4 GHz band] is consistent with Applicant’s specification which states “For pre-802.11be STA, the sending of the ADDBA request frame needs to be performed in the link (the first link or Link1) in step 120, i.e., the BA feedback is performed in the link in which the ADDBA request frame is sent” (see spec ¶ 0044).
Chitrakar fails to expressly teach that the first station supports single-link communication with the AP; wherein multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links.
However, Ko, in the analogous art, discloses wherein the first station supports single-link communication with the AP (Ko teaches, in ¶ 0403, that An operation of a non-STR soft AP multi-link device with a legacy station or a single-link station may be restricted to be performed only in a mandatory link ... The single-link station may be a station incapable of operating in multiple links); wherein multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links (Ko shows, in FIG. 10, that the AP MLD establishes [bidirectional] multi-links (i.e., Link1 and Link 2) with the Non-AP MLD1 (i.e., the second station). AP MLD also establishes a [bidirectional] link with the Non MLD STA3). The link that the AP establishes with the Non MLD STA3 is single-link or mandatory link.
Ko also states, in ¶ 0357, that Referring to FIG. 35A, AP1 belonging to the AP MLD may perform a frame transmission or reception operation with multiple terminals connected to the AP. For example, AP1 may simultaneously transmit downlink frames to STA1-1, STA2-1, and STA3 by using an OFDMA operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Chitrakar with the mandatory link taught in Ko. The motivation is to enable AP-MLD to communicate with a legacy station and/or a single-link station.
For Claim 16, Chitrakar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0119, that The circuitry may include at least one controller 2706 for use in software and hardware aided execution of tasks it is designed to perform, including control of communications with one or more other multi-link devices in a M IMO wireless network ) causes the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above).
For Claim 19, Chitrakar discloses a communication method, further comprising: performing a communication operation based on the multi-station block acknowledgement message, wherein the communication operation comprises at least one of: sending a delete block acknowledgement request; or in response to determining, based on the multi-station block acknowledgement message, that a data frame sent for first time is not received by the AP, sending the data frame for second time (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0048, that When it is determined that transmission of a data frame has failed (e.g., within the data transmission 452, as indicated in the BlockAck frame), the data frame is retransmitted on the same link).
For Claim 21, Chitrakar discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor (Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0119, that FIG. 27, the multi-link device 2700 may include circuitry 2714 … circuitry may include at least one controller 2706 for use in software and hardware aided execution of tasks it is designed to perform, including control of communications with one or more other multi-link devices in a M IMO wireless network), wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 7 (please refer to the rejection of Claim 7, above).
For Claim 22, Chitrakar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0119, that The circuitry may include at least one controller 2706 for use in software and hardware aided execution of tasks it is designed to perform, including control of communications with one or more other multi-link devices in a M IMO wireless network ) causes the processor to perform the method of claim 7 (please refer to the rejection of Claim 7, above).
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojan Chitrakar et al (US 20250261259 A1) in view of Geonjung Ko et al (US 20230262768 A1) as applied to claim 1, or 7 above, and further in view of Xiaofei Wang et al (US 20180241531 A1).
For Claims 2, 8, Chitrakar & Ko disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the multi-station block acknowledgement message is a delayed block acknowledgement message.
However, Wang, in the analogous art, teaches that the multi-station block acknowledgement message is a delayed block acknowledgement message (Wang discloses, in ¶ 0101, 1-3, that the MU-MIMO PPDU format may be used to transmit a delayed multi-user ACKs or block ACKs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Chitrakar & Ko with the delayed block acknowledgement taught in Wang. The motivation is to effectively reduce the overhead for data packets by acknowledging packets from multiple users simultaneously [Wang: ¶ 0129].
For Claims 6, 12, Chitrakar & Ko disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the multi-station block acknowledgement message is sent based on: a multicast address assigned to the first station and the second station, or a broadcast address as a receiving address for the multi-station block acknowledgement message.
However, Wang, in the analogous art, teaches that the multi-station block acknowledgement message is sent based on: a multicast address assigned to the first station and the second station, or a broadcast address as a receiving address for the multi-station block acknowledgement message (Wang discloses, in ¶ 0010, that In response to the receiving, an ACK frame may be transmitted to the first STA and to the second STA. The ACK frame may be addressed to a broadcast address. Boger discloses, in in ¶ 0111, that The aggregated multi-user ACK packet may be broadcast or multicast to more than one user (e.g., STA)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Chitrakar & Ko with the multicast address taught in Wang. The motivation is to improves the system efficiency by allowing the recipient of multiple frames to transmit a single block ACK to acknowledge a block of data frames[Wang: ¶ 0075].
For Claim 17, Chitrakar & Ko disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving, in the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the first station and the second station; or receiving, in the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the first station, and receiving, in the first link or an other link different from the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the second station.
However, Wang, in the analogous art, teaches receiving, in the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the first station and the second station; or receiving, in the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the first station, and receiving, in the first link or an other link different from the first link, a delete block acknowledgement request from the second station (Wang discloses, in ¶ 0138, that the transmitting and receiving STAs or AP may delete the delayed multi-user ACK arrangement by transmitting a Delete Delayed Multi-user ACK frame (DELDMA) frame, which may be immediately acknowledged by the other party in the delayed multi-user ACK. Boger discloses, in in ¶ 0135, that A Delete Block ACK frame (DELBA) frame may be used as a format of the DELDMA frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Chitrakar & Ko with the multicast address taught in Wang. The motivation is to improves the system efficiency by allowing the recipient of multiple frames to transmit a single block ACK to acknowledge a block of data frames[Wang: ¶ 0075].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Claims 1-12, 15-17, 19, 21-22
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement that cited references fail to teach or suggest “sending, by the AP and in a first link, the multi-station block acknowledgement message to a first station and a second station, as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added),” (see remarks, page 12).
The reason being, and as Applicant rightly pointed out, Chitrakar teaches, in ¶ 0053, lines 6-12, that Upon receiving the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 from the multi-link originator 302, the multi-link recipient 304 transmits the multi-link Block Ack 534 on the same link on which the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 was received to indicate that the multi-link recipient 304 successfully received QoS Data A-MPDUs 536a and 536b. Chitrakar explains, in ¶ 0062, lines 1-5, that Although in this example, the multi-link ADDBA Request 810 is transmitted by the multi-link originator 302 to the multi-link recipient 304, if the multi-link TS setup 510 was for uplink traffic, the multi-link ADDBA Request would be transmitted by the multi-link recipient 304 to the multi-link originator 302. Chitrakar shows in Figure 5, that the multi-link originator 302 is an AP Multi-link Device.
In other words, Chitrakar teaches that when uplink traffic is involved, the multi-link originator 302, which is an AP Multi-link Device will receive the multi-link BlockAckReq 532 from the multi-link recipient 304, and AP Multi-link Device 302 will then transmit the multi-link Block Ack 534 to the multi-link recipient 304. Therefore, Chitrakar teaches sending, by the AP and in a first link, the multi-station block acknowledgement message to at least a first station.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s statement that cited references fail to teach or suggest “multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links, as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added),” (see remarks, page 12).
The reason being Ko shows, in FIG. 10, an AP MLD establishing multiple links with a non-AP MLD, with FIG. 10 is reproduced herein below for Applicant’s convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clearly, it can be seen from FIG. 10, above, that the AP MLD establishes [bidirectional] multi-links (i.e., Link1 and Link 2) with the Non-AP MLD1 (i.e., the second station). AP MLD also establishes a [bidirectional] link with the Non MLD STA3). The link that the AP establishes with the Non MLD STA3 is the single-link or mandatory link.
Further, Chitrakar, teaches in ¶ 0047, lines 22-26, that Once the TS and BA have been setup in each link, the data transmissions and corresponding BA transmission can take place in each link, for example 430 in the 6 GHz band, 440 in the 5 GHz band and 450 in the 2.4 GHz band.
Ko, additionally, states, in ¶ 0166, that Each link may operate in a 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, or 6 GHz band, and a bandwidth expansion operation may be performed in each link. For example, in a case where an AP MLD configures one link in the 2.4 GHz band and two links in the 5 GHz band. Thus, the prior art does, in fact, teach that the first link is comprised in the multi-links.
Consequently, Examiner believes that the applied art, in combination, does teach multi-links are configured for establishment of block acknowledgement feedback between the second station and the AP, and the first link is comprised in the multi-links, as recited in amended claim 1.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, and amended claim 1 is not yet allowable. Amended independent claims 7 and 15, although different in scope from claim 1 and from each other, recite elements similar to those discussed above regarding claim 1 and are not yet allowable for at least similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22 have been rejected on their own merits, as well as for depending from rejected base claim 1 or 7. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-12, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22 are also not yet allowable.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-12, 15-17, 19, 21-22, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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 MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)2705629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at (571)2707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights