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 Amendment
The Amendment filed June 3, 2026 has been entered. Prior to the Amendment, claims 1-20 were pending in the application. By the Amendment, claims 1 and 11 are amended, no claims are newly added or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended recites the limitation, inter alia, “wherein the observed traffic metric indicates:
an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of the multi-link connection over a time window or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window, and
that the second wireless device has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection,” emphasis added.
Claim 11 as amended recites the limitation, inter alia, “wherein the observed traffic metric indicates an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of the multi-link connection over a time window or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window, and wherein the observed traffic metric indicates that the second wireless device has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection,” emphasis added.
The Applicant cites, on p.6 of the Amendment, “¶¶[0098] and [0100] as providing the purported support for the above claim language, which cited portions are reproduced below:
[0098] In some implementations, the first wireless device may be connected with the second wireless device via a multi-link connection. The first wireless device 402 may receive, via the communication link 408, a traffic metric 410 (such as observe the traffic metric 410 between the first wireless device 402 and the second wireless device 404) associated with the second wireless device 404. In some implementations, the observed traffic metric 410 may indicate an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of a multi-link connection between the first wireless device 402 and the second wireless device 404 over a time window. For instance, the first wireless device 402 may identify that the second wireless device 404 has active data transmission or reception on two links or one link while being connected across three links. In some aspects, the observed traffic metric 410 may indicate an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window. For example, the first wireless device 402 may identify an underutilization of one or more links of the multi-link connection by observing the traffic metric 410 associated with the second wireless device over the connection.
[0100] As described herein, a multi-link connection may be associated with limited usage of link-capacity. In this example, the first wireless device 402 may identify one or more clients (such as second wireless device 404) that do not have active data transmission or reception on any MLD across all radios. For instance, the traffic metric 410 may indicate that the second wireless device 404 may be connected to multiple operating links but may not have an active data transmission or reception over the operating links. In such implementations, the first wireless device 402 may request a reduction in a quantity of operating links for the second wireless device 404. Additionally, or alternatively, the first wireless device 402 may identify that the second wireless device 404 may have data transmission or reception scheduled for a quantity of operating links less than a quantity of operating links included in the multi-link connection between the first wireless device 402 and the second wireless device 404. For example, the first wireless device 402 may determine that the second wireless device 404 is connected to three operating links, and that the second wireless device 404 has active data transmission or reception across two of the three operating links or one of the three operating links. In such implementations, the first wireless device 402 may request a reduction in a quantity of operating links for the second wireless device 404. For instance, the first wireless device 402 may request a reduction in operating links from three to two or from three to one.
Upon a careful review of the above portions relied by the Applicant, and of the other remining portions of the Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner respectfully disagree that the Applicant’s disclosure provides sufficient written description support that reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The portions relied by the Applicant, and elsewhere in Applicant’s disclosure, plainly do not describe a observed traffic metric that indicates both: i) “an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of the multi-link connection over a time window or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window” (“Limitation A”); and ii) “that the second wireless device has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection” (“Limitation B”), as the claims as amended now require.
According to the Applicant’s specification, the observed traffic metric is explicitly described as indicating: 1) “an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of a multi-link connection between the first wireless device 402 and the second wireless device 404 over a time window,” Specification at ¶[0098]; 2) “an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window, id.;” 3) that the second wireless device 404 may be connected to multiple operating links but may not have an active data transmission or reception over the operating links, id. at ¶[0100]. Thus, there appears to be sufficient support for the claim requirement that the observed traffic metric indicates Limitation A.
However, with respect to the claim Limitation B, the specification provides: “Additionally, or alternatively, the first wireless device 402 may identify that the second wireless device 404 may have data transmission or reception scheduled for a quantity of operating links less than a quantity of operating links included in the multi-link connection between the first wireless device 402 and the second wireless device 404.” Id. at ¶[0100]. Nothing in the above passage provides the support for the same observed traffic metric is required to also indicate the above claim Limitation B.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 as amended are rejected for including newly added subject matter without sufficient support in the specification. Claims 2-10 and 12-20, because due to their dependency also include those recitations deemed to constitute new matter, are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)for at least the same reason the independent claims are rejected.
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) (hereinafter “Lu”).
Regarding claim 1, Lu 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, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless device to (See, ¶[0763]):
transmit (See, Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled);” or Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3-Delete)”), 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 (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and a second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”), a message (Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled);” or Fig. 18, “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3-Delete)”) requesting a reduction in a quantity of operating links (See, ¶¶[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”) associated with a multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, the links 1-3) between the first wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and the second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”),
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 (The number of operating links is reduced from 3 links (links 1-3) to 2 links (links 1 and 2). See, Figs. 17 and 18, “Link3-disabled;” and “Link3-delete”), and
wherein the observed traffic metric (Fig. 17 and 18, “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3”) 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, the link 3 between the “AP3” and the “STA3”) 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 during the time period “T2.”)2, and
that the second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”) has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection (See, Figs. 17 and 18, the indication that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period” indicates that there are 2 remaining links (i.e., link 1 and link 2) on which data frames are transmitted. See, Figs. 17 and 18, the “Association Response” message that includes the “Link-T2(max idle period-2 for link enabled);” Fig. 13, “Max idle period Info for link enabled;” and ¶¶[0378], “the duration Tall may be the max idle period for link enabled corresponding to the all setup links;” Accordingly, Lu discloses the AP MLD (of Figs. 17 and 18) monitoring all links 1-3 for the idle condition during the T2 period. While in the example of Figs. 17 and 18, the idle condition is observed only for STA 3, if the same idle condition is detected for any other link(s), the “indication” would be, e.g., links 2 and 3 are idle. In the specific example of Figs. 17 and 18, as the AP MLD is monitoring all links, and detects only the link 3 being idle, it would be aware that 2 links (i.e., link 1 and link 2) out of the 3 links remain active based on the indication that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period,” and based on the absence of such indication for the other links. See, also, ¶[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.”) that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection (See, Figs. 17 and 18, the total number of the available links is 3, i.e., links 1-3); 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 2/1, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu further 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)” from “STA1” to “AP1”) in response to transmitting the message requesting the reduction in the quantity of operating links (Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled)” from “AP1” to “STA1”), 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 3/2, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 2 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 4/1, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 “STA1” to “AP1”) from the second wireless device (Fig. 18, “Non-AP MLD”) 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).” Thus, non-AP MLD” is operating with a reduced number of links (i.e., reduced from 3 to 2). ).
Regarding claim 5/4, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 4 as discussed above.
Lu further 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, Fig. 18; and ¶[0470], “delete Link3”).
Regarding claim 9/1, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu further discloses that the message comprises a background traffic management (BTM) message or a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (See, Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3 disabled)”).
Regarding claim 10/1, Lu discloses a first wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 discloses a method for wireless communications (Figs. 17 and 18) at a first wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”), comprising:
transmitting (See, Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled);” or Fig. 18, The arrow labeled “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3-Delete)”), 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 (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and a second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”), a message (Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled);” or Fig. 18, “Link Reconfiguration Request (Link3-Delete)”) requesting a reduction in a quantity of operating links (See, ¶¶[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”) associated with a multi-link connection (Figs. 17 and 18, the links 1-3) between the first wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “AP MLD”) and the second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”),
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”)3 associated with a reduced quantity of operating links (The number of operating links is reduced from 3 links (links 1-3) to 2 links (links 1 and 2). See, Figs. 17 and 18, “Link3-disabled;” and “Link3-delete”),
wherein the observed traffic metric (Fig. 17 and 18, “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3”) 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, the link 3 between the “AP3” and the “STA3”) 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 during the time period “T2.”)4, and
wherein the observed traffic metric (Fig. 17 and 18, “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3”) indicates that the second wireless device (Figs. 17 and 18, “Non-AP MLD”) has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection (See, Figs. 17 and 18, the indication that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period” indicates that there are 2 remaining links (i.e., link 1 and link 2) on which data frames are transmitted. See, Figs. 17 and 18, the “Association Response” message that includes the “Link-T2(max idle period-2 for link enabled);” Fig. 13, “Max idle period Info for link enabled;” and ¶¶[0378], “the duration Tall may be the max idle period for link enabled corresponding to the all setup links;” Accordingly, Lu discloses the AP MLD (of Figs. 17 and 18) monitoring all links 1-3 for the idle condition during the T2 period. While in the example of Figs. 17 and 18, the idle condition is observed only for STA 3, if the same idle condition is detected for any other link(s), the “indication” would be, e.g., links 2 and 3 are idle. In the specific example of Figs. 17 and 18, as the AP MLD is monitoring all links, and detects only the link 3 being idle, it would be aware that 2 links (i.e., link 1 and link 2) out of the 3 links remain active based on the indication that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period,” and based on the absence of such indication for the other links. See, also, ¶[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.”) that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection (See, Figs. 17 and 18, the total number of the links is 3, i.e., 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 12/11, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Lu further discloses that the method further comprises:
receiving a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (Fig. 17, The arrow labeled “TID-to-link mapping response (Link3 disabled)” from “STA1” to “AP1”) in response to transmitting the message requesting the reduction in the quantity of operating links (Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3-disabled)” from “AP1” to “STA1”), 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 13/12, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 12 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 14/11, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 “STA1” to “AP1”) from the second wireless device (Fig. 18, “Non-AP MLD”) 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).” Thus, non-AP MLD” is operating with a reduced number of links (i.e., reduced from 3 to 2).).
Regarding claim 15/14, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 14 as discussed above.
Lu further 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, Fig. 18; and ¶[0470], “delete Link3”).
Regarding claim 19/11, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Lu further discloses that the message comprises a background traffic management (BTM) message or a traffic identifier to link mapping (TTLM) request (See, Fig. 17, “TID-to-link mapping request (Link3 disabled)”).
Regarding claim 20/11, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Lu further 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 in view of IEEE802.11DraftD6.05.
Regarding claim 6/1, Lu teaches a wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu, however, 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, 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 below6); 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 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 (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.). Doing so would enable the AP MLD taught by Lu to be better compliant to the relevant IEEE standard. (See, Lu, ¶[0069], “[t]he AP may be a device supporting the 802.11be standard.”).
Regarding claim 16/11, Lu discloses a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Lu, however, fails to teach explicitly that transmitting the message further comprises:
IEEE802.11DraftD6.0 teaches that 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.
wherein 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 (See, IEEE802.11DraftD6.0, Page 611, lines 13-22 (see, footnote 6 above); 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 method of AP MLD operation taught by Lu 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 (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.). Doing so would enable an AP MLD implanting the method taught by Lu to be better compliant to the relevant IEEE standard. (See, Lu, ¶[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 in view of Cherian et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0206190) (hereinafter “Cherian”).
Regarding claim 7/1, Lu teaches a wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 1, including the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to transmit a message in accordance with the observed traffic metric as discussed above.
Lu, however, fails to explicitly teach transmit[ting] 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 teaches a wireless device (See, Cherian, Figs. 2 (#105-a) and 8 (#805)) configured to:
transmit 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 the wireless device taught by Lu to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian, ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 8/7, Lu in view of Cherian teach a wireless device comprising all elements recited in claim 7 as discussed above.
Cherian teach further 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 the wireless device taught by Lu to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian, ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 17/11, Lu teaches a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 11, including transmitting a message in accordance with the observed traffic metric, as discussed above.
Lu, however, fails to teach that the method further comprises:
transmitting 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 teaches a method (Fig. 10) for wireless communications a wireless device (See, Cherian et al. Figs. 2 (#105-a) and 8 (#805)), comprising:
transmitting 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 (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 the method for a wireless device taught by Lu to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian, ¶[0004]).
Regarding claim 18/17, Lu in view of Cherian teach a method for wireless communications comprising all elements recited in claim 17 as discussed above.
Cherian 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 the method for a wireless device taught by Lu to incorporate the above teaching of Cherian in order to improve the power saving characteristics of the wireless devices (See, e.g., Cherian, ¶[0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, in substance, that none of the prior art references relied in support of the rejections in the previous Office Action, namely, Lu, Cherian and IEEE802.11DraftD6.0, either alone or in combination, disclose or teach the newly added limitations of each of the independent claims 1 and 11 as amended, namely, ""the observed traffic metric indicates" both "an absence of traffic associated with one or more links of the multi-link connection over a time window or an underutilization of the one or more links of the multi-link connection over the time window," “(Limitation 1)” and "that the second wireless device has active data transmission or reception on a first quantity of links of the multi-link connection that is less than a total quantity of operating links of the multi-link connection" (“Limitation 2”). See, Amendment at p. 8.
More particularly, the Applicant asserts that the features disclosed by Lu, namely, "AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3" (“Lu’s Metric”) within "T2" are not the same as those recited in amended independent claims 1 and 11, Amendment at p. 7, because: 1) Lu’s Metric fails to indicate both of Limitation 1 and Limitation 2, id. at p. 8: 2) Lu’s Metric indicates “physical reachability” rather than underutilization, i.e., its underlying purpose is different from the claimed observed traffic metric, id., at p. 8; and 3) because Lu’s Metric indicates the status of STA 3 only, AP device of Lu would not be made aware of the status of the other links, and thus would not be made aware of the Limitation 2 by Lu’s Metric, id. at p. 8.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with each of the above arguments/assertions.
Firstly, the Applicant suggests that Lu’s Metric serves a different purpose or solves a different problem than what is intended by the present application (i.e., the above Applicant’s assertion 2) and throughout in the “Remarks” section of the Amendment) fails because such Applicant’s purpose/problem to be solved is not recited in the claims, and because such argument is not an appropriate point to raise in an anticipation analysis. See, e.g., MPEP §2131.05.
With respect the argument the Lu’s Metric allegedly failing to indicate both the Limitation 1 and the Limitation 2, while the Applicant’s main focus appears to be directed to the Limitation 2, for completeness, the Limitation 1 is briefly addressed.
Lu’s Metric plainly indicates “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period,” Lu, Figs. 17 and 18. Comparing Lu’s Metric with Limitation 1 (as was provided in the last Office Action), “an absence of traffic (“no frame transmission being present on the link between AP3 and STA3, i.e., link 3) associated with one or more links (Link 3) of the multi-link connection (links 1-3) over a time window (within T2 period), the Examiner respectfully remains convinced that this limitation is indisputably met.
As to the Applicant’s argument relating to the Limitation 2 (and responding to the Applicant’s assertion 3) above), for at least the following reasons, the AP MLD of Lu’s disclosure would be made aware of the status of all three links based on the determination that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period.”
When the reference is considered as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Lu discloses the AP MLD (Lu, Figs. 17 and 18) monitors for idle condition of all of links, i.e., links 1-3. Specifically, Lu discloses an “Association Response” message, which sets up all three links, i.e., links 1-3, id. Figs. 17 and 18. The message contains the “Link-T2(max idle period-2 for link enabled)” information, id. This information, i.e., Max Idle Period information, is for all set up links, id. at ¶[0378]. Accordingly, Lu discloses that the AP MLD monitors not only link 3, but also similarly monitors the other links, i.e., links 1 and 2, for idle conditions during the T2 period.
The examples shown in Figs. 17 and 18 of Lu, thus depict one scenario where, while the AP MLD is monitoring all three set up links, it determines that only the link 3 being idle. The AP MLD, therefore, is made aware that only the link 3 being idle out of the three links it monitors. Such awareness is based on the determination that “AP3 has not received any frame transmitted by STA3 within T2 period.”
For at least all of the above reasons, the previous grounds, to the extent unaffected by the newly introduced claim recitation by the Amendment, are maintained. As any changes to the previous rejection of the claims were necessitated by the amendment, this Action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 July 8, 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 See footnote 1 above.
4 See footnote 2 above.
5 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). Previously made of record.
6 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.
Prosecution Insights