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 to the claims filed on 09/10/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 17-19 are Amended. Claim Objections and the §112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 09/10/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant first argues that Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0413261 (hereinafter Jiang) “fails to describe ‘indicating a non-WLAN antenna grant status to the WLAN device,’ as recited in amended claim 1” – See Resp., p.9:¶5. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons: First, Jiang describes a “a coexistence (co-ex) event when a co-located radio (e.g., BT, BLE, cellular) may have higher priority than WLAN” and “the wireless device may not receive WLAN traffic during such an event” – See [¶0078] that means, in a broadest reasonable interpretation, that the device allocates transmission resources, e.g., a Tx/Rx antenna, to a non-WLAN device; second, Jiang further teaches that on such event “wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state, e.g., by indicating PM=1” – See [¶0079]; last, the present Specification describes the “indicating a non-WLAN antenna grant status to the WLAN device” as “indicating a non-WLAN (e.g., BT) antenna grant status as a power save (PS) indication of the ML link to an AP (e.g., Wi-Fi device) or a peer UE device to block or allow WLAN receiving (RX) on the shared-band” – See Spec.:[¶0055] i.e., clearly the same definition of the limitation as disclosed in Jiang. Therefore, this argument fails to persuade.
Applicant further argues that “Jiang further fails to describe direct WLAN transmissions of the WLAN device to a non-shared link of the ML,’ as recited in claim 1” because “the AP's
determination to use other bandwidths does not teach an MLD configured to ‘direct WLAN
transmissions of the WLAN device to a non-shared link of the ML’”– See Resp., p.10:¶2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Jiang discloses that the MLD device makes the determination to use other bandwidths and sends an indication to the AP, as required by Claim 1 – See [¶0095] (“the wireless device may determine bandwidth characteristic(s). . . and/or a bandwidth (W),” i.e., “one or more bandwidth characteristic(s) of the second communication may be determined” and “if good in-device isolation is available the wireless device may determine (and inform the AP) that particular frequency ranges (e.g., resource units (RU)) that should be avoided during times that the second communication is active. Thus, it may be possible that co-ex interference may be avoided without the AP totally avoiding DL transmission during times that the wireless device is engaged in the second communication,” i.e., the AP is directed to other bandwidths/links)(emphasis added) and [¶0097] (“may transmit, to the AP, an indication of the characteristic(s),” e.g., “an action frame may include the indication”).
The MPEP§2131.01 provides that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added) whereby "To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, (Fed. Cir. 1991) (The court went on to explain that "this modest flexibility in the rule that ‘anticipation’ requires that every element of the claims appear in a single reference accommodates situations in which the common knowledge of technologists is not recorded in the reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the invention, albeit not known to judges." 948 F.2d at 1268, 20 USPQ at 1749-50.);
Here, a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that when the second communication is with a Bluetooth device the frequency range/bandwidth used is 2.4GHz, therefore the other bandwidths/links the AP may use for DL transmissions to the MLD are 5GHz and 6GHz which are not shared with the Bluetooth device. These are inherent characteristics of the devices and communications disclosed in Jiang as known to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing day of the present Application. Furthermore, the Office Action, at page 8, presented extrinsic evidence of the frequency bands of a standard IEEE 802.11be compliant the MLD whereby the standard was disclosed in Jiang – See, e.g., [¶0084] and detailed in Footnote 4, at page 9, enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) operation of such an MLD. To be sure, the Specification does not have a special definition of a shared vs. non-shared link simply stating that “non-shared link” is one link of “a multi-link (ML) comprising a plurality of links across different frequency bands, a non-shared link of the ML for a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device and a shared link of the ML” whereby “[t]he shared link of the ML can be for the WLAN device and a device communicating using a different type of wireless protocol than a protocol of the WLAN device sharing a frequency band with the device” and “[t]he non-shared link can correspond to at least one of a frequency band of 5 GHz or a frequency band of 6 GHz” – See Spec.:[¶¶0010-11]. Therefore, there is no difference between the multiple bandwidths, i.e., 2.4/5/6GHz, of which the lowest is shared with “one another RAT (e.g., Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), cellular, etc.) is active at a wireless device” – See [¶0078] but not the high ones, as disclosed in Jiang and known in the art, and the claimed link of the ML on which the WLAN communication is blocked and the non-shared link of the ML used “at least while the non-WLAN device performs activity on the link,” as claimed. Thus, Applicant’s argument, put in light of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skills in the art, fails to persuade.
Lastly, Applicant asserts that “resource units within a multi-link setup are not analogous to different frequency bands, such as a 2.4 GHz frequency band and a 5 GHz frequency band” concluding that “switching to different resource units, as described by Jiang, is not analogous to switching to ‘a non-shared link of the ML" where the MLD is associated with ‘a plurality of links across different frequency bands,’ as recited in amended claim 1” – See Resp., p.11:¶1. However, Applicant’s assertion lacks foundation as the Specification does not define “resource unit” and no reference in the art is provided to back the assertion. To be sure, standard technical specifications either from 3GPP or from IEEE define the “resource unit” precisely as an allocation of frequencies for transmission – See, e.g., IEEE P802.11be™/D5.0, November 2023 , cited multiple times in the previous Office Action, defining, at page 57, “resource unit: [RU] A group of 26, 52, 106, 242, 484, 996, or 2×996, or 4×996 subcarriers as an allocation of subcarriers for transmission,” i.e., a bandwidth allocated for transmission and further describing resource allocations to channels in each frequency band based on subcarriers (or central frequencies as disclosed in Jiang) in § 36.3, at page 694 et seq., specifically at page 755, Table 36-24 specifying the center frequencies for the channels in each frequency band 2.4GHz, 5GHz and 6GHz thus showing that switching the center frequency may correspond to switching to a different frequency band.
In sum, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered by they fail to persuade.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0413261 (hereinafter Jiang) and further in view of IEEE 802.11-23/2174r11, Title: "TGbn January 2024 Meeting Agenda," Source: Qualcomm, January 10, 2024 (hereinafter IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda) and documents referenced therein.
Regarding Amended Claims 1 and 14, Jiang teaches in Fig. 3, a system (“systems, methods, apparatuses, and mechanisms for coexistence of multiple RATs” – See [¶0007] whereby the “WLAN system includes a plurality of wireless client stations or devices (e.g., STAs or user equipment (UEs)), 106 that are configured to communicate over a wireless communication channel 142 with an Access Point (AP) 112” – See [¶0061]) comprising: a multi-link device (MLD) comprising one or more processors coupled with memory (“a wireless device may establish communication with an access point (AP) according to a first radio access technology (RAT) and may establish communication with a second device according to a second RAT different from the first RAT” – See [¶0008] and Fig. 5) and
in Fig. 7 a method by the MLD ( “a wireless device may establish first communication with an access point (AP) according to a first radio access technology (RAT) and establish second communication with a second device according to a second RAT different from the first RAT” – See [¶0009] whereby the “method may comprise, at a wireless device” – See [¶0156]) to:
establish a multi-link (ML) comprising a plurality of links across different frequency bands (“a device might include a shared radio for communicating using one or more of LTE, CDMA2000 1xRTT, GSM, and/or 5G NR,” i.e., a shared radio link, “and separate radios for communicating using each of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Other configurations are also possible,” i.e., multiple non-shared radio links – See [¶0054](emphasis added) and Fig. 5 showing multiple antenna for a plurality of radio links1 across different frequency bands; whereby, as shown in Fig. 7, “the first wireless device 102 and the second wireless device 104 may perform communication using wireless local area networking (WLAN) communication technology (e.g., IEEE 802.11/Wi-Fi based communication) and/or techniques based on WLAN wireless communication,” – See [¶0050] over different Wi-Fi frequency bands, whereby “elements of the method of FIG. 7 are described in a manner relating to the use of communication techniques and/or features associated with IEEE and/or 802.11 (e.g., 8O2.11be, 8O2.11bX, Wi-Fi 8, etc.) specification documents” – See [¶0084], whereby, e.g., IEEE P802.11be™/D5.0, November 2023 (amendment to IEEE P802.11-REVme/™D3.0) (hereinafter IEEE P802.11be) shows in Figure AF-23, at page 1018, reproduced hereinafter, an example of ML setup in compliance with the specification documents, herein a “non-AP MLD is associated with the AP MLD on two links, Link 1 on 2.4 GHz between AP 1 and non-AP STA 1 and Link 2 on 5 GHz between AP 2 and non-AP STA 2” and “setup a link between AP 3 and non-AP STA 3” on 6GHz frequency band2
PNG
media_image1.png
334
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
grant to a non - Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device shared access to a link of the ML with at least one WLAN device by indicating a during a coexistence (co-ex) event when a co-located radio (e.g., BT, BLE, cellular) may have higher priority than WLAN,” i.e., while the MLD grants the BT shared access to a Rx antenna/radio link, usually in the 2.4GHz Wi-Fi band as known in the art – See [¶0078], the “wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state, e.g., by indicating PM=1” – See [¶0079]);
block a WLAN communication of the WLAN device on the link of the ML responsive to determining that the non-WLAN device is to perform activity on the link (“the wireless device may not receive WLAN traffic during such an event” – See [¶0078] because “the AP may determine some time period(s) during which the wireless device . . . may not be available to receive DL communications” – See [¶0100] e.g., “In the case of periodic communication, the indication may be considered as an indication of target absence period(s), e.g., when the wireless device may not be available” – See [¶0101]);
direct WLAN transmissions of the WLAN device to a non-shared link of the ML at least while the non-WLAN device performs activity on the link (“In the case that bandwidth characteristics are indicated (e.g., or otherwise are known to the AP),” for example that the Bluetooth device shares the 2.4GHz band/radio link but not the 5/6GHz bands/radio links, “the AP may further determine particular bandwidths to avoid and/or other bandwidths that may be used (e.g., even at times the wireless device is engaged in second communication),” e.g., the non-shared links – See [¶0103]); and
allow the WLAN device to resume WLAN transmission on the link
responsive to the non-WLAN device completing activity on the link (when “the second communication ends prior to the end of the duration, the wireless device may determine early availability (e.g., for a next active time for the first communication) and may determine to indicate that availability to the AP” – See [¶0110] whereby “Such an indication may be transmitted using one or more of: new type of Action frame (e.g., which may be aggregated with a trigger for DL communication, e.g., may indicate PM=0), . . . or a new variant of an acknowledgement frame (e.g., such as a multi-STA block acknowledgement) frame (e.g., when responding to DL data from the AP)” – See [¶0117] and Fig. 11).
Although Jiang discloses frequency resources granted to communication with the non-WLAN device (“the wireless device may determine (and inform the AP) that particular frequency ranges (e.g., resource units (RU)) that should be avoided during times that the second communication is active” – See [¶0095]), and a person of ordinary skills in the art considering the device in Fig. 6 would appreciate that the allocated frequency resources means access to the antenna serving Bluetooth communication, Jiang does not explicitly disclose a non-WLAN antenna grant.
IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda (the Agenda) references contributions on the Coexistence topic for UHR transmissions. For example, IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1, Title: “Coexistence Protocols for UHR,” Source: Qualcomm (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1), cited on Slide 24 of the Agenda, discloses on Slide 2, like Jiang, that “[a] STA can share its radio resources with other technologies (BT, etc.)” and “May not be available at certain times, frequencies, etc” whereby among the resources shared are: “1. Time/Frequency: Link becomes (partially) unavailable at certain times” and “2. Antennae: Subset of antennas (SS) becomes unavailable.” In addition, IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1 discloses in Slide 6 “Antennae sharing across . . . multiple techs, etc.” e.g., WLAN/Wi-Fi and non-WLAN communications, and proposes in Slide 7 a mechanism to notify the AP of the shared/non-WLAN transmission antennae grant similar to dynamically shared bandwidth indication using Initial Control Frame (ICF).
Thus, Jiang and the solutions proposed in the IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda each discloses MLD devices where co-existence events with non-WLAN devices on at least one link of the multiple links (ML) happen and the unavailability of the MLD on the shared link is indicated to the AP. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the grant for antenna sharing with non-WLAN technologies as taught in IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1, referenced by IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda, could have been added to the step of allocating resources during time that the second communication is active, as taught by Jiang, resources that are to be avoided by the AP and indicated by the MLD to the AP, because the antenna grant to the second communication is similar to the frequency resource grant, as taught in IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the addition through techniques known in the art. Finally, the addition achieves the predictable result of granting access to a shared antenna resource to a non-WLAN device while indicating the grant to the AP as provided by IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1 referenced in the IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Therefore, Amended Claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the activity on the link utilizes the different type of wireless protocol corresponding to at least one of:
Bluetooth (BT) communications, cellular network communications (“both of the wireless device 102 and the wireless device 104 may also be capable of communicating via one or more additional wireless communication protocols, such as any of Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near field communication (NFC), GSM, UMTS (WCDMA, TDSCDMA), LTE, LTE-Advanced (LTE-A), NR, 3GPP2 CDMA2000 (e.g., lxRTT, lxEV-DO, HRPD, eHRPD), Wi-MAX, GPS, etc.” – See [¶0050]), ZigBee communications, Z-Wave communications, Thread communications or digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) communications.
Therefore, Claims 2 and 15 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
turn off (by the MLD) a power amplifier for processing the WLAN communication on the link of the ML in response to the blocking (“wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state,” i.e., turned off a power amplifier for processing the WLAN communication on the link at the wireless MLD, whereby “PM frames may include an indication that PM=1. In response to receiving an indication that PM=1, an AP may set a PM bit to 1 and may therefore stop transmitting to the wireless device (e.g., for as long as PM=1)” – See [¶0094]; see also IEEE 802.11be providing, at page 2077 that in doze state the “STA is not able to transmit or receive and consumes very low power,” and at page 4347, that “[i]n doze state a . . . STA might set the transceivers off”).
Therefore, Claims 3 and 16 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claims 4 and 17, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
determine (by the MLD) that an unused link3 of the ML is capable of communicating the WLAN communication (“one or more bandwidth characteristic(s) of the second communication may be determined,” e.g., “co-located narrow band radio may use a smaller bandwidth compared with a typical WLAN transmission” – See [¶0095] hence a lot of bandwidth remains unused for WLAN communication if blocked, or the 5/6GHz radio links, capable of WLAN communication as provided by the IEEE P802.11be standard supra, are currently unused4)
grant the non-WLAN device shared access to the link in response to the determination (“it may be possible that co-ex interference may be avoided without the AP totally avoiding DL transmission during times that the wireless device is engaged in the second communication” by using “a frequency hopping pattern ( e.g., if used for the second communication),” i.e., use frequency division multiplexing whereby “the wireless device may determine (and inform the AP) that particular frequency ranges (e.g., resource units (RU)) that should be avoided during times that the second communication is active” – See [¶0095]; frequency or time division multiplexing may be applied also to the 5/6GHz unused links if the non-WLAN device works in these bands – See, e.g., [¶0106] (“the second communication may be frequency division multiplexed (FDM) with the first communication, e.g., at times that the second communication is active”); [¶0105] (“[t]he wireless device may alternate between the first/second communication, e.g., according to TDM”)).
Therefore, Amended Claims 4 and 17 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claims 5 and 18, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
determine the link is used for the activity of the non-WLAN device (on the radio link in Fig. 8 the “BLE connection events (802a, 802b, 802c) may be T=15 ms apart. In each connection event, up to 7 BLE packets per connection interval may be transmitted, and each BLE packet may take approximately 708 us to transmit. Thus, the duration of BLE activity may be D=-5 ms” – See [¶0092] and “In the case of periodic communication, the indication [to the AP] may be considered as an indication of target absence period(s), e.g., when the wireless device may not be available”– See [¶0101]); and
block the WLAN communication of the WLAN device in response to the determination (“The AP may determine a WLAN activity time (T-D) and target absence period (D) for each period (T)” – See id. and “The wireless device may alternate between the first/second communication, e.g., according to TDM” and “The AP may avoid transmitting DL communication to the wireless device at any time that the wireless device may be unavailable,” i.e., during the target absence period (D) the WLAN communication is blocked – See [¶0123]).
In addition, IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda references IEEE 802.11-23/2078, Title: “Coex Enhancement for XR Use Cases,” Source: Meta (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-23/2078), disclosing on Slide 3 that “A client (STA) device may be aware of its co-located BT traffic profile and traffic interval and may shape its Wi-Fi Tx/Rx traffic to fit into BT gaps” specifically, “STA may be able to control its uplink Tx activity.” IEEE 802.11-23/2078 further proposes “a mechanism that allows STA to request AP to control the following: Max DL packet duration, Min Tx interval, Slow DL rate control when lack of UL BA,” i.e., adapt to sharing a radio link with the non-WLAN traffic. Because such enhancements improvements upon the system and method disclosed in Jiang before the effective foiling date of the present application and using methods known to a person of ordinary skills in the art, Amended Claims 5 and 18 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claims 6 and 19, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
identify a time duration during which the non-WLAN device is to perform the activity on the link (“BLE or narrowband radio traffic may occur periodically, and may result in periodic times when the wireless device may not receive WLAN traffic” – See [¶0080] e.g., “communication is periodic, the characteristics may include a period (T), duration (D), and/or start time (t0) of the second communication, e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 8” – See [¶0091] and “the characteristic(s) determined . . . may be considered initial or baseline characteristic(s) (e.g., which may be updated when/if needed)” – See [¶0096]); and
determine to direct the WLAN transmissions to the non-shared link for at least the time duration (“In the case that bandwidth characteristics are indicated (e.g., or otherwise are known to the AP), the AP may further determine particular bandwidths to avoid and/or other bandwidths that may be used (e.g., even at times the wireless device is engaged in second communication)” – See [¶0103] i.e., WLAN transmissions will happen on a link in a different, i.e., “non-shared” frequency band, e.g., 5 or 6GHz; see also IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, at page 1020, Figure AF-25 showing an example of link reconfiguration to the ML setup for adding a link, Figure AF-33 at page 1026 showing that each non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD maintains its own power state, and Figure AF-34, at page 1026, showing a link transition operation by a single radio non-AP MLD using power states).
Therefore, Claims 6 and 19 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, dependent from Amended Claims 1 and 14, respectively, anticipated by Jiang, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
identify one or more medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs) of a physical protocol data unit (PPDU) of the WLAN communication not yet communicated with the WLAN device via the link prior to the blocking (while “a wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state . . . transmitting such a frame may not be reliable. For example, the wireless device may not be able to access the medium to transmit such a frame in a timely manner, e.g., because the AP or another device may be occupying the medium” – See [¶0079]).
However, Jiang does not teach direct the identified one or more MPDUs to the non-shared link for communication with the WLAN device via the non-shared link.
IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1, discloses on Slide 3 that, like in Jiang, “STA may not be able to complete frame exchange before an unavailability event E.g., unavailability starts in 5 ms but PM=1 exchange not successful (failure, etc.).” Furthermore, IEEE 802.11-23/1963r0, Title: “Periodical NSS Adjustment for an MLD,” Source: Huawei (hereinafter IEEE 802.11-23/1963r0), cited on Slide 23 of the Agenda, discloses that “[t]here are some scenarios that a STA cannot, or is not allowed to do a transmission during certain time periods, due to In-device coexistence with a non-Wi-Fi system” – See Slide 2, and proposes that in such cases, because “[t]he introduction of multiple links in 11be provides an opportunity to use these radio chains. An MLD can dynamically switch radio chains among multiple links” showing on Slide 5 an example where “During the first part of each time period (equal to T), the STA on link 1 cannot transmit due to Co-TDMA,” e.g., the higher priority BT transmission taught in Jiang; then “[t]he NSS = 0 on link 1, and the MLD switches the m radio chains from link 1 to link 2, and the NSS on link 2 becomes m+n accordingly,” whereby link 2 is a higher frequency band radio, e.g. 6GHz, thus directing one or more MPDUs to the non-shared link for communication with the WLAN device via the non-shared link.
Thus, Jiang and the solutions proposed in the IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda each each discloses MLD devices with TDM co-existence with other devices/protocols on at least one link established with a (MDL) AP and suffering collisions/interference on the ongoing PPDU transmission on the WLAN. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the solution of dynamically switching to a link using a radio on a higher frequency band to transmit one or more MPDUs to the AP while the first link is unavailable due to coexistence with the other device, as taught in the solutions proposed in the IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda could have been substituted in for the Target Absence Period in Jiang both support reducing the effects of coexistence interference. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of benefiting from the opportunity to use multiple radio chains simultaneously provided in IEEE 802.11be standard, as taught in the IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Therefore, Claims 7 and 20 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
determine a time duration until a start of the activity on the link by the non-WLAN device (“if the second communication is repetitive (e.g., but not periodic, e.g., due to a flexible duration), the characteristics may include a fixed amount of time for the first communication/RAT (e.g., WLAN) and/or a maximum amount of time for the second communication/RAT (e.g., BT),” e.g., “the fixed duration may be 60 ms and the maximum amount of time may be 40 ms” – See [¶0093] and FIG. 9; in another example, “during respective periods for the first communication, the wireless device may determine an amount of time remaining ( e.g., left over time). The amount of time may be determined based on the time that an indication (1102a, 1102b, 1102c) of the time remaining is to be transmitted. For example, remaining time 1104 may be the amount of time between the indication 1102a and the end of the fixed WLAN time,” i.e., the possible start of the non-WLAN activity on the link – See [¶0111] and FIG. 11);
adjust a size of the WLAN communication to complete communicating the WLAN communication on the link prior to the start of the activity on the link by the device (“wireless device may use a message 902 (e.g., a power management (PM) frame) to indicate to the AP that the fixed duration is ending” and the “AP may set a PM bit to 1 and may therefore stop transmitting to the wireless device” – See [¶0094] and FIG. 9, or ; in another example, “in the case of periodic communication when the wireless device has determined early availability for an active time of the first communication, may transmit an indication to the AP, e.g., that the wireless device is available from the time of the indication until a next duration of communication for the second communication” – See [¶0116] and FIG. 10 and “The AP may determine ( e.g., updated) times to avoid transmitting DL communication to the wireless device and/or determine times for such transmissions (716), according to some embodiments. The AP may make this determination based on the initial characteristics ( e.g., received in 706) and/or updated characteristics (e.g., received in 714)” – See [¶0119]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claim 9, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
generate an indication for an antenna shared for the WLAN communications with the WLAN device and the activity by the non-WLAN device (“co-located narrow band radio may use a smaller bandwidth compared with a typical WLAN transmission. Thus, the wireless device may determine (and inform the AP) that particular frequency ranges (e.g., resource units (RU)) that should be avoided during times that the second communication is active,” e.g., “the wireless device may determine bandwidth characteristic(s) such as a (e.g., starting) center frequency f0, . . . and/or a bandwidth (W),” e.g., non-overlapping channels in the same 2.4GHz frequency band– See [¶0095] and “The wireless device may transmit, to the AP, an indication of the characteristic(s) (706), according to some embodiments. The indication may be transmitted in one or more frames, e.g., containing one or more field(s) for indicating the characteristic(s). For example, an action frame may include the indication” – See [¶0097]; see also IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1disclosing on Slide 7 the antenna-sharing mechanism that is “[s]imilar concept to dynamic BW negotiation” using ICF/ICR frames carrying an indication of the number of antennae used, e.g., 2 when one is shared with the non-WLAN traffic)
the indication indicative to the WLAN device whether the MLD is receiving WLAN communications via the link (“Thus, it may be possible that co-ex interference may be avoided without the AP totally avoiding DL transmission during times that the wireless device is engaged in the second communication” – See [¶0095]; see also IEEE 802.11-23/1963r0 proposing on Slide 5 a periodical mechanism for switching the number of antennae for WLAN traffic on a link and considering OM signaling to indicate the change).
Therefore, Amended Claim 9 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claim 10, Jiang teaches in Fig. 6, a multi-link device (MLD) (e.g., the Wireless device 106, has two links and could be a “MLD: Multi-link Device” – See [¶0028] and “may be configured to perform methods for communication in a manner to reduce/avoid coexistence while communicating according to multiple RATs5” – See [¶0062] and Fig. 7, whereby “elements of the method of FIG. 7 are described in a manner relating to the use of communication techniques and/or features associated with IEEE and/or 802.11 (e.g., 802.11be, . . . ) specification documents” – See [¶0084], whereby a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that IEEE 802.11be introduced ML operations), comprising: one or more processors coupled with memory (as shown in Fig. 6) to:
allocate, from a multi-link (ML) comprising a plurality of links across different frequency bands (e.g., Wireless device 106 may be an 802.11be non-AP MLD as shown in Figure AF-23, IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, at page 1018, reproduced supra in Regarding Amended Claim 1, showing ML setup, whereby an “Association Request frame includes a Basic Multi-Link element that indicates the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD and a complete profile” of each affiliated non-AP STA resulting in “three links are setup (link 1 between AP 1 and non-AP STA 1, link 2 between AP 2 and non-AP STA 2, and link 3 between AP 3 and non-AP STA 3)”),
a non-shared link of the ML for a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device (e.g., the 6GHz link is allocated for 320MHz/higher bandwidth communications between the MLD and AP3 of the AP MLD)
and a shared link of the ML for the WLAN device (e.g., the 2.5GHz radio link is for 20MHz/smaller bandwidth communications)
and a non - Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device by indicating a non-WLAN antenna grant status to the WLAN device, the WLAN device representing an access point (AP), and the non-WLAN device communicating using a different type of wireless protocol than a protocol of the WLAN device sharing a frequency band with the non-WLAN device (as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra where the same limitations are recited using the same language);
block WLAN communications transmitted to the WLAN device on the shared link at least while there is at least one active connection with the non-WLAN device by reducing a power of hardware of the MLD used for WLAN communications on the shared link (“during a coexistence (co-ex) event when a co-located radio (e.g., BT, BLE, cellular) may have higher priority than WLAN . . . the wireless device may not receive WLAN traffic during such an event” – See [¶0078] because the “wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state, e.g., by indicating PM=l” – See [¶0079] i.e., the MLD enters a reduced power state for the WLAN RAT on the shared link); and
block, via an indication sent to the WLAN device, WLAN communications from the WLAN device at least while there is at least one active connection with the device (““In response to receiving an indication that PM=l, an AP may set a PM bit to 1 and may therefore stop transmitting to the wireless device (e.g., for as long as PM=1)” – See [¶0094] and FIG. 9).
Therefore, Amended Claim 10 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claim 11, dependent from Amended Claim 10, Jiang further teaches the MLD of claim 10, comprising the one or more processors to:
detect an active connection with the non-WLAN device to communicate using the different type of wireless protocol (the “BLE connection events (802a, 802b, 802c) may be T=15 ms apart. In each connection event, up to 7 BLE packets per connection interval may be transmitted, and each BLE packet may take approximately 708 us to transmit. Thus, the duration of BLE activity may be D=-5 ms” – See [¶0092] and FIG. 8); and
allocate the shared link to the non-WLAN device (“one or more bandwidth characteristic(s) of the second communication may be determined” e.g., the frequency band of 2.48GHz specific to BT so the shared link is the 2.5GHz RAT at the wireless device – See [¶0095] and the “wireless device may send a power management (PM) frame to the AP indicating that the wireless device is entering a doze state” on this link – See [¶0079]) and
the non-shared link to the WLAN device (e.g., the 5GHz and 6GHz RATs are not put in doze mode; see also IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, showing at page 1026, in Figure AF-33, that each non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD maintains its own power state)
responsive to the detection (“the wireless device may determine (and inform the AP) that particular frequency ranges (e.g., resource units (RU)) that should be avoided during times that the second communication is active” – See [¶0095])
Therefore, Amended Claim 11 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Amended Claim 11, Jiang further teaches the MLD of claim 11, with the same limitations as recited in Claim 2, using the same language. Because Claims 2 and 11 are obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda, Claim 12 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Regarding Amended Claim 13, dependent from Amended Claim 10, Jiang further teaches the MLD of claim 10, wherein the shared link corresponds to the frequency band of 2.4 GHz and the non-shared link corresponds to at least one of a frequency band of 5 GHz or a frequency band of 6 GHz (e.g., Figure AF-23, at page 1018, IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, referenced by Jiang, shown above, an example of ML setup in compliance with the specification documents wherein the “non-AP MLD is associated with the AP MLD on two links, Link 1 on 2.4 GHz between AP 1 and non-AP STA 1 and Link 2 on 5 GHz between AP 2 and non-AP STA 2” and “setup a link between AP 3 and non-AP STA 3” on 6GHz frequency band).
Therefore, Amended Claim 13 is obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
In sum, Claims 1-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Jiang in view of IEEE 802.11TGbn_Agenda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sedin et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0237107 discloses a UE in a 3GPP network configured also as an MLD in a WLAN;
Cariou et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0031871 discloses a multi-link access point (AP) device, station (STA) and method of communication for steering ML traffic;
Lee et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0357680 discloses a multi-link operation (MLO) Wi-Fi dual traffic identification data transmission method;
Stacey et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0282229 discloses a multi-link access point (AP) device, station (STA) and method of communication;
Cariou, WIPO Patent Application Publication WO2022/076726 discloses systems, methods, and devices related to quiet element for specific multi-link operation (MLO);
3GPP TS 36.300 V18.0.0 (2023-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN);Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 18)”; §23.4, disclosing at page 340-341, solutions for interference avoidance for in-device coexistence, whereby “a UE may be equipped with LTE, WiFi, and Bluetooth transceivers, and GNSS receivers” and “IDC problem can happen when the UE (intends to) uses WLAN on the overlapped carrier/band or adjacent carrier/band to the unlicensed carrier used for LAA operation, e.g. when related UE hardware components, such as antennas, are shared between LAA and WLAN operations” and stating that “the IDC functionality for a UE should be configured by the eNB when the UE is configured for LAA operation.” Furthermore “the UE can autonomously deny LTE UL transmission in all phases to protect ISM in rare cases if other solutions cannot be used. Conversely, it is assumed that the UE also autonomously denies ISM transmission in order to ensure connectivity with the eNB to perform necessary LTE procedures, e.g., RRC connection reconfiguration and paging reception, etc. The network may configure a long-term denial rate by dedicated RRC signalling to limit the amount of LTE UL autonomous denials. Otherwise, the UE shall not perform any LTE UL autonomous denials” – See id., at page 342. Section 23.6, at page 343-344, provides that “[t]he UE uses the RAN assistance parameters in the evaluation of:
-Access network selection and traffic steering rules defined in TS 36.304 [11]; or
-ANDSF policies defined in TS 24.312 [58].
for traffic steering decisions between E-UTRAN and WLAN as specified in TS 23.402[19]. The OPI is only used in ANDSF policies as specified in TS 24.312 [58]. WLAN identifiers are only used in access network selection and traffic steering rules defined in TS 36.304,” whereby “[t]he selection among WLANs that fulfil the access network selection and traffic steering rules is up to UE implementation.”;
"IEEE Draft Standard for Information technology--Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications Amendment: Enhancements for Extremely High Throughput (EHT)," in IEEE P802.11be/D5.0, November 2023 , vol., no., pp.1-1045, 3 Jan. 2024;
ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11 Third edition 2022-07, “Telecommunications and information exchange between systems — Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks — Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications”;
IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1, Title: “Coexistence Protocols for UHR,” Source: Qualcomm, published November, 2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/1963r0, Title: “Periodical NSS Adjustment for an MLD,” Source: Huawei, published November 2023;
IEEE 802.11-23/2078, Title: “Coex Enhancement for XR Use Cases,” Source: Meta, published December 7, 2023;
Yang et al., “AP Coordination and Full-duplex enabled Multi-band Operation for the Next Generation WLAN: IEEE 802.11be (EHT),” 2019 11th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP), Xi'an, China, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/WCSP.2019.8928021;
(optional for reference) Zhang et al, "IEEE 802.11be Network Throughput Optimization With Multilink Operation and AP Controller," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 13, pp. 23850-23861, 1 July1, 2024, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2024.3386653.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 The general ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11Standard, Third edition 2022-07, defines the link at page 186, as “a physical path consisting of exactly one traversal of the wireless medium (WM) that is usable to transfer MAC service data units (MSDUs) between two stations (STAs),” i.e., akin toa radio link.
2 See also Yang et al., "AP Coordination and Full-duplex enabled Multi-band Operation for the Next Generation WLAN: IEEE 802.11be (EHT)," 2019 11th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP), Xi'an, China, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/WCSP.2019.8928021 (hereinafter Yang) stating, at page 1, that “one of the most important technology introduced by IEEE 802.11be is multiband operation (MB-Opr), which enables the access points (APs) and stations (STAs) to work in multiple frequency bands including 2.4GHz, 5GHz and newly introduced 6 GHz, simultaneously.”
3 The Specification defines “an unused link (e.g., non-shared link) of the ML” – See [¶0088].
4 The same reference provides in § 35.3.13.2, at page 549, that “[a] non-AP MLD shall be able to perform basic operations (such as receiving a traffic indication, time synchronization, receiving BSS parameter updates) related to the AP MLD and all the APs affiliated with the AP MLD by monitoring one or more of the link(s) it has set up with the AP MLD.”(emphasis added).
5 Including a case where the Wireless device 106 performs enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) operations as provided by IEEE 802.11be/D5.0 at page 62, a multi-radio non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD): as “[a] non-AP MLD that supports reception or transmission of frames on more than one link at a time”; and the enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) operation: as “[a] mode of operation that allows a non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (non-AP MLD) with multiple receive chains to listen on a set of enabled links when the corresponding non-AP stations (STAs) affiliated with the non-AP MLD are in the awake state for an initial frame sent by an access point (AP) affiliated with an AP multi-link device (AP MLD) to one of the receiving non-AP STAs in a physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) whose number of spatial streams (Nss) satisfies that receiving non-AP STA’s receiving capabilities, followed by frame exchanges that satisfy the modulation and coding scheme (MCS), Nss capabilities in EMLMR mode on the link on which the initial frame was received.”
