DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to an application filed on July 1, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2025/0220752).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a first wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD,” Fig. 25, #1000 and ¶[0771]), comprising:
a processing system (Fig. 25, #s 1020 and 1010) that includes processor circuitry (Fig. 25, #1010) and memory circuitry (Fig. 25, #1020) that stores code (See, ¶[0763]), the processing system configured to cause the first wireless device to:
transmit, in accordance with an observed traffic metric (Fig. 17 and 18, “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3,” See, also, ¶s[0469] and [0470]) between the first wireless device and a second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”), a message (Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled);” and Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3-Delete)”) requesting a reduction in a quantity of operating links (See, ¶s[0469] and [0470], “After the multi-link setup is completed, …if AP3 has not received any frame …transmitted by STA3 within the T2 period, …the AP MLD initiates the TID-To-Link Mapping [link reconfiguration] request through Link1, and negotiates with the non-AP MLD to [delete Link 3] set Link3 to the “disabled” state.”) associated with a multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, links 1-3) between the first wireless device and the second wireless device, wherein the message indicates at least one wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, The request is sent to, and received by, the “Non-AP MLD”)1 associated with a reduced quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17, From 3 links (links 1-3) reduced to 2 links (links 1 and 2)), and wherein the observed traffic metric indicates an absence of traffic (See, Figs. 17 and 18, and ¶s[0469] and [0470], “has not received any frame”) associated with one or more links (Figs. 17 and 18, link 3) of the multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, links 1-3) over a time window (Figs. 17 and 18, “T2”) or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window (See, Figs. 17 and 18, showing, where 3 links (links 1-3) were setup, the utilization of only links 1 and 2)2; and
communicate with the second wireless device in accordance with the requested reduction in the quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17 and 18,¶s[0469] and [0470], “Since there are still enabled links Link1 and Link2, the state in which the non-AP MLD is associated with the AP MLD is maintained.”).
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al. discloses that the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to:
receive a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping response (Link3 disabled)”) in response to transmitting the message requesting the reduction in the quantity of operating links, wherein the TTLM request confirms the requested reduction in the quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17, “(Link3 disabled)” in the response confirming the request. See, also, ¶[0469], “negotiates with the non-AP MLD to set Link3 to the “disabled” state.”).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. discloses that the TTLM request indicates a mapping between one or more traffic identifiers and the reduced quantity of operating links (See, e.g., ¶s[0092]-[0093], “if no TID is mapped to a setup link either in uplink or downlink, the setup link is defined as “disabled.” Accordingly, a disabled link, i.e., the link 3, would not be mapped to any TID, while links 2 and 3 are mapped).
Regarding claim 4, Lu et al. discloses that the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to:
receive, in accordance with the message, a multi-link reconfiguration request (Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Response (Link3-Delete)”) from the second wireless device associated with operating in accordance with the reduction in the quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection (See, Fig. 18, The response indicates “(Link3-Delete)”).
Regarding claim 5, Lu et al. discloses that the multi-link reconfiguration request indicates that at least one operating link excluded from the reduced quantity of operating links is dropped (See, ¶[0470], “delete Link3”).
Regarding claim 9, Lu et al. discloses that the message comprises a background traffic management (BTM) message or a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (See, Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping response (Link3 disabled)”).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. discloses that the first wireless device includes an access point (AP) (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and the second wireless device includes a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”).
Regarding claim 11, Lu et al. discloses a method for wireless communications (Figs. 17 and 18) at a first wireless device(Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”), comprising:
transmitting, in accordance with an observed traffic metric (Fig. 17 and 18, “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3,” See, also, ¶s[0469] and [0470]) between the first wireless device and a second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”), a message requesting a reduction in a quantity of operating links (Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3 disabled);” and Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3 Delete).” See, also, ¶s[0469] and [0470]) associated with a multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, links 1-3) between the first wireless device and the second wireless device, wherein the message indicates at least one wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, The request is sent to, and received by, the “Non-AP MLD” via link 1, which link remains enabled.) associated with a reduced quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17, reduced from 3 to 2 links), and wherein the observed traffic metric indicates an absence of traffic (See, Figs. 17 and 18, and ¶s[0469] and [0470], “has not received any frame”) associated with one or more links (Figs. 17 and 18, link 3) of the multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, links 1-3) over a time window (Figs. 17 and 18, “T2”) or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window (See, Figs. 17 and 18, showing the utilization of only links 1 and 2 where the setup links include links 1-3 ); and
communicating with the second wireless device in accordance with the requested reduction in the quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17 and 18,¶s[0469] and [0470], “Since there are still enabled links Link1 and Link2, the state in which the non-AP MLD is associated with the AP MLD is maintained.”).
Regarding claim 12, Lu et al. discloses that the method of further comprises: receiving a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping response (Link3 disabled)”) in response to transmitting the message requesting the reduction in the quantity of operating links, wherein the TTLM request confirms the requested reduction in the quantity of operating links (See, Fig. 17, “(Link3 disabled)” in the response confirming the request. See, also, ¶[0469], “negotiates with the non-AP MLD to set Link3 to the “disabled” state.”).
Regarding claim 13, Lu et al. discloses that the TTLM request indicates a mapping between one or more traffic identifiers and the reduced quantity of operating links (See, e.g., ¶s[0092]-[0093], “if no TID is mapped to a setup link either in uplink or downlink, the setup link is defined as “disabled.” Accordingly, a disabled link, i.e., the link 3, would not be mapped to any TID, while links 2 and 3 are mapped).
Regarding claim 14, Lu et al. discloses that the method further comprises: receiving, in accordance with the message, a multi-link reconfiguration request (Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Response (Link3-Delete)”) from the second wireless device associated with operating in accordance with the reduction in the quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection (See, Fig. 18, The response indicates “(Link3-Delete)”).
Regarding claim 15, Lu et al. discloses that the multi-link reconfiguration request indicates that at least one operating link excluded from the reduced quantity of operating links is dropped (See, ¶[0470], “delete Link3”).
Regarding claim 19, Lu et al. discloses that the message comprises a background traffic management (BTM) message or a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (See, Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping response (Link3 disabled)”).
Regarding claim 20, Lu et al. discloses that the first wireless device includes an access point (AP) (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and the second wireless device includes a non-AP multi-link device (MLD) (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”).
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. in view of IEEE802.11DraftD6.03.
Regarding claim 6, Lu et al. teaches a wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that, to transmit the message, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to:
transmit the message comprising a request for the second wireless device to associate or reassociate with the first wireless device using the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device.
IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 teaches that that, to transmit the message, the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to: transmit the message comprising a request for the second wireless device to associate or reassociate with the first wireless device using the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device (See, IEEE802.11DraftD6.0, Page 611, lines 13-22 (Reproduced below4); See, also, Page 314, line 24 – Page 317, line 27).
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 AP MLD taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the BSS Traffic Management (BTM) Request taught by the IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 as an alternative or additional messaging scheme to achieve the reduced number of operating links, where the IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 also sets forth those other schemes taught by Lu et al. (See, e.g., IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 at §6.5.24a Link disable, Page 106, line 57, et seq. and §9.4.2.321.4 Reconfirmation Multi-Link element, page 262, line 24, et seq.). Because doing so would enable the AP MLD taught by Lu et al. to be more closely compliant to the relevant IEEE standard. (See, Lu et al. ¶[0069], “[t]he AP may be a device supporting the 802.11be standard.”).
Regarding claim 16, Lu et al. teaches method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that transmitting the message further comprises:
transmitting the message comprising a request for the second wireless device to associate or reassociate with the first wireless device using the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device.
IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 teaches that that transmitting the message further comprises:
transmit the message comprising a request for the second wireless device to associate or reassociate with the first wireless device using the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device (See, IEEE802.11DraftD6.0, Page 611, lines 13-22; See, also, Page 314, line 24 – Page 317, line 27).
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 AP MLD taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the BSS Traffic Management (BTM) Request taught by the IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 as an alternative or additional messaging scheme to achieve the reduced number of operating links, where the IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 also sets forth those other schemes taught by Lu et al. (See, e.g., IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 at §6.5.24a Link disable, Page 106, line 57, et seq. and §9.4.2.321.4 Reconfirmation Multi-Link element, page 262, line 24, et seq.). Because doing so would enable the AP MLD taught by Lu et al. to be more closely compliant to the relevant IEEE standard. (See, Lu et al. ¶[0069], “[t]he AP may be a device supporting the 802.11be standard.”).
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. in view of Cherian et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0206190).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et al. teaches a wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to:
transmit, in accordance with the observed traffic metric, a second message requesting an increase to the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device.
Cherian et al. teaches a wireless device (See, Cherian et al. Figs. 2 (#105-a) and 8 (#805)) configured to transmit, in accordance with the observed traffic metric, a second message (Fig. 3 (#320)) requesting an increase to the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device (See, Fig. 10 (#1015) and ¶s[0005] “The activated wireless links may be inactivated upon expiration of a time duration;” [0006], “receiving…an indication that the second wireless device has data to be transmitted…….activating, based at least in part on the received indication,…the one or more wireless links that are in the inactive state.” See, also ¶s [0059] and [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wireless device taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian et al. in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian et al. ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Cherian et al. further teaches that the observed traffic metric indicates an increase in traffic associated with the one or more links of the multi-link connection over a second time window (See, e.g., ¶[0059], “the AP 105-a may determine which wireless links 205 should be active or inactive based on an amount of traffic (e.g., pending data to be transmitted, or data contained in a transmit buffer or queue)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wireless device taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian et al. in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian et al. ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Lu et al. teaches method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises:
transmitting, in accordance with the observed traffic metric, a second message requesting an increase to the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device.
Cherian et al. teaches a method (Fig. 10) for wireless communications a wireless device (See, Cherian et al. Figs. 2 (#105-a) and 8 (#805)), comprising:
transmitting, in accordance with the observed traffic metric, a second message (Fig. 3 (#320)) requesting an increase to the reduced quantity of operating links associated with the multi-link connection between the first wireless device and the second wireless device (See, Fig. 10 (#1015) and ¶s[0005] “The activated wireless links may be inactivated upon expiration of a time duration;” [0006], “receiving…an indication that the second wireless device has data to be transmitted…….activating, based at least in part on the received indication,…the one or more wireless links that are in the inactive state.” See, also ¶s [0059] and [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wireless device taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian et al. in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian et al. ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Cherian et al. further teaches that the observed traffic metric indicates an increase in traffic associated with the one or more links of the multi-link connection over a second time window (See, e.g., ¶[0059], “the AP 105-a may determine which wireless links 205 should be active or inactive based on an amount of traffic (e.g., pending data to be transmitted, or data contained in a transmit buffer or queue)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wireless device taught by Lu et al. to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian et al. in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian et al. ¶[0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 March 12, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 See, also ¶[0093], “ If a link is enabled for a non-AP MLD, then: …3) individually addressed management frames and control frames may perform downlink/uplink transmission between a STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD corresponding to any enabled link and an AP affiliated with the associated AP MLD.”, Emphasis added. Because Figs. 17 and 18, clearly indicate that the request is sent via link 1, which is an enabled link, Lu et al. discloses the request being individually addressed.
2 See, Applicant’s own disclosure at ¶[0097], “If the current traffic conditions indicate that there is an absence of traffic across one or more operating links, or if a client device (such as a STA or non-AP MLD) is currently using less than the assigned quantity of operating links,” Emphasis added.
3 IEEE Std 802.11(2020) Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specification, published by the IEEE, Inc., February 26, 2021, Pp 1-4379, as amended by the IEEE802.11be/D6.0 IEEE P802.11be™/D6.0 Draft Standard; Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications; Amendment 2: Enhancements for extremely high throughput (EHT), Published by the IEEE, May 2024. Pp.1-1075. All citations are to the separately published amendment document (IEEE P802.11be/D6.0).
4 If an AP MLD uses the BTM protocol to recommend a non-AP MLD to do (re)association with the same AP
MLD with a different set of links, the non-AP MLD may follow the recommendation by either:
— (re)associating with the same AP MLD with the recommended set of links or
— initiating an ML reconfiguration negotiation by following the procedures in 35.3.6.4 (Link
reconfiguration to the setup links) to operate with the recommended set of setup links or
— initiating a TTLM negotiation (see 35.3.7.2.3 (Negotiation of TTLM)) if the enabled links would match the set of recommended links.