21-DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 12/05/2025, in which claims 2, 4-7, 9-10, 21-33 are pending and ready for examination.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 11-20 have been cancelled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Terminal Disclaimer Note
Examiner called and left a voice message to applicant’ attorney Mr. Lu Yin (Reg. No. 60,214) to file a terminal disclaimer in order to overcome with double patenting rejection, but has not received any response form the attorney.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2,4-7, 9-10 and 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,513,747B2, Lu et al. (hereinafter, “LU”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In response to claim 2,
LU teaches a multi-link device (MLD), the MLD being a non-access point (non- AP) MLD, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; a processor coupled with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the non-AP MLD to perform: transmitting, by a first non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the non-AP MLD, a first frame, the first frame comprising first transmission mode information first information for transmission mode related to one of transmission modes of the non-AP MLD, and the transmission modes allowing none or at least one of the first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD operating on one of links has a right to initiate a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for frame exchange (claim 2 teaches this limitation);
receiving, by the first non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD, a second frame, the second frame being a response frame to the first frame and comprising second information for transmission mode, the second information for transmission mode indicating the one of the transmission modes of the non-AP MLD, and the second information for transmission mode being an acknowledgment of the first information for transmission mode, and then the non-AP MLD operating in an enhanced multi-link (EML) mode on the links (claim 3 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 4,
LU teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the non-AP MLD to perform: waiting, by the non-AP MLD, a transition delay, and then the non-AP MLD operating in an EML mode on the links (claim 4 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 5,
LU teaches wherein the second transmission mode information second information for transmission mode is a response of a request of the one of the transmission modes, the response is sent by an access point (AP) MLD (claim 5 teaches this limitation 0.
In response to claim 6,
LU teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the non-AP MLD to perform: initiating, by the non-AP MILD, the frame exchange on one of the links with an AP affiliated with an AP MLD according to the first transmission mode information first information for transmission mode (claim 6 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 7,
LU teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the non-AP MLD to perform: disabling initiating, by the non-AP MILD, the frame exchange on one of the links with an AP affiliated with an AP MLD according to the first transmission mode information first information for transmission mode (claim 7 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 9,
LU teaches wherein a second mode of the transmission mode indicates it is disallowed that the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD initiate the frame exchange (claim 9 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 10,
LU teaches wherein a third mode of the transmission mode indicates it is allowed at least one of the first non-AP STA and the second non- AP STA has the right to initiate the TXOP for the frame exchange on a subset of the links and merely only one of the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD initiates the frame exchange on one of the links at a time (claim 10 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 24,
LU teaches a data transmission method, comprising: transmitting, by a first non-AP station (STA) affiliated with the non-AP MILD, a first frame, the first frame comprising first information for transmission mode related to one of transmission modes of the non-AP MLD, and the transmission modes allowing none or at least one of the first non-AP STA and a second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD operating on one of links has a right to initiate a transmission opportunity (TXOP) for frame exchange (claim 1 teaches this limitation);
receiving, by the first non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MILD, a second frame, the second frame being a response frame to the first frame and comprising second information for transmission mode, the second information for transmission mode indicating the one of the transmission modes of the non-AP MILD, and the second information for transmission mode being an acknowledgment of the first information for transmission mode, and then the non-AP MLD operating in an enhanced multi-link (EML) mode on the links (claim 3 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 25,
LU teaches further comprising: waiting, by the non-AP MILD, a transition delay, and then the non-AP MLD operating in an EML mode on the links (claim 4 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 26,
LU teaches wherein the second information for transmission mode is a response of a request of the one of the transmission modes, the response is sent by an access point (AP) MILD (claim 5 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 27,
LU teaches further comprising: initiating, by the non-AP MLD, the frame exchange on one of the links with an AP affiliated with an AP MLD according to the first information for transmission mode (claim 6 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 28,
LU teaches further comprising: disabling initiating, by the non-AP MLD, the frame exchange on one of the links with an AP affiliated with an AP MLD according to the first information for transmission mode (claim 7 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 29,
LU teaches wherein a second mode of the transmission mode indicates it is disallowed that the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD initiate the frame exchange (claim 8 teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 30,
LU teaches wherein a third mode of the transmission mode indicates it is allowed at least one of the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA has the right to initiate the TXOP for the frame exchange on a subset of the links and only one of the first non-AP STA and the second non-AP STA affiliated with the non-AP MLD initiates the frame exchange on one of the links at a time (claim 10 teaches this limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 and 31-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As for claims 21 and 31, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that can be used obviousness double patenting rejection.
The closet prior art in the record Cariou et al. (20250063505) teaches in paragraph 112-113 about using a using a non-AP enhanced multi-link device (eMLD) with enhanced multi-link single radio mode (eMLSR), he also teaches in paragraphs 116 and 125 about performing a EML operating mode initial frame exchange and negotiating a eMLSR agreement, but he fails to teach “wherein the first information for transmission mode or the second information for transmission mode is a bitmap of 16 bits”.
Claims 22 and 32 are objected, because these claims depend on claim 21 and 31.
As for claims 23 and 33, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that can be used obviousness double patenting rejection.
The closet prior art in the record Cariou et al. (20250063505) teaches in paragraph 112-113 about using a using a non-AP enhanced multi-link device (eMLD) with enhanced multi-link single radio mode (eMLSR), he also teaches in paragraphs 116 and 125 about performing a EML operating mode initial frame exchange and negotiating a eMLSR agreement, but he fails to teach “wherein the subset of the links is indicated by the first information for transmission mode”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20230144291………………paragraphs 140-145.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights