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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"grant a device to share access to" should read "grant to a device shared access to" for better understanding;
“used by device for communicating” should read “used by the [which?] devices for communicating.”
Appropriate correction based on Applicant’s intent is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite for lack of antecedent when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention" – See 751 F.3d at 1311, even though during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification – See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also MPEP § 2111 - § 2111.01.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, each claim first requires “a multi-link device”; “a device”; and “at least one Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) device” and further requires:
“the device communicating using a different type of wireless protocol” – however, it is unclear whether “the device” is the first, the second or the third of the required devices. Furthermore, assuming that “the device” is the second device, it is unclear whether: (1) this device shares access to a link of the ML with yet another, third device; or (2) a link of the ML is established between the first device and the third device and the second device is granted shared access to this link. Because Fig. 3 and Specification [¶0062] disclose case (2), this interpretation will be used for further examination;
“the device performs[/completing] activity on the link” – here, again, it is unclear whether “the device” is the first, the second or the third of the required devices because any of these devices may perform/complete a transmission on a link except for the device using another protocol than WLAN, as explained below.
Furthermore, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Here, claim language requires “grant to a device to share access to a link of the ML . . . the device communicating using a different type of wireless protocol than a protocol of the WLAN device that shares a frequency band with the device.” However, the accepted meaning of the term “share access to a link of the ML” is “contention to transmit on the same link,” and that implies using the same wireless protocol for all devices. The term “share access to a link of the ML” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Specification recites the same language as used in the claim, i.e., “grant to a device to share access to a link of the ML” in several places - See [¶0005], [¶0007], [¶¶0012-13], [¶0062],[¶0078], [¶0083], and [¶0087], in places where the Specification details the method by which the grant is performed, sharing is not of a link of the established ML but of a radio resource such as an antenna or bandwidth at the ML device (MLD) – See [¶0028] (“when the antenna is granted to such non-WLAN communications”); [¶0031] (“when the non-WLAN (e.g., BT) does not get the antenna granted”); [¶¶0054-55](“granting non-WLAN (e.g., BT) shared-band of MLD” and “non-WLAN (e.g., BT) is granted a shared-band” whereby the “dynamic mechanism can include indicating a non-WLAN (e.g., BT) antenna grant status . . . or a peer UE device to block or allow WLAN receiving (RX) on the shared-band”); [¶0072](“indicating a device (e.g., non-WLAN device 306 or WLAN device 304) an antenna grant status”); [¶¶0102-3](“the dynamic mechanism 600 can grant BT communication a shared-band (e.g., 504B) of MLD” and the “BT is granted shared-band (e.g., to 504B) while WLAN transmission is ongoing”); and [¶0104](“indicate the BT antenna grant status”). But a link of a MLD in a WLAN communication system is a concept well defined in the art as a traffic conduit between a non-AP STA and an AP STA (“Between the access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) and the associated non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (non-AP MLD)”) – See, e.g., “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 (hereinafter IEEE 802.11be/D5.0), defining, at page 59-60, an enabled link, as “[a] setup link between an access point (AP) multi-link device (AP MLD) and an associated non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (non-AP MLD) to which at least one traffic identifier (TID) is mapped either in downlink or in uplink (see 35.3.7.2 (TID-To-Link Mapping (TTLM)))” and, conversely, a disabled link, as not having a TID mapped, whereby a setup link is defined “a link that is requested by the non-AP MLD in the (Re)Association Request frame and is accepted by the AP MLD in the (Re)Association Response frame (see 35.3.5 (ML (re)setup)1), and is not removed at a later time because of the removal of an affiliated AP (see 35.3.6.3 (Removing affiliated APs)) or deletion of a link (see 35.3.6.4 (Link reconfiguration to the ML setup)), or a link that is added after association through multi-link reconfiguration (see 35.3.6.4 (Link reconfiguration to the ML setup)) and is not removed at a later time because of the removal of an affiliated AP (see 35.3.6.3 (Removing affiliated APs)) or deletion of a link (see 35.3.6.4 (Link reconfiguration to the ML setup)).” Therefore, when a link is clearly defined in the art and the Specification does not redefine the ML link as a feature specific to the claimed invention, the claimed “grant to a device to share access to a link of the ML” when the device practices a “different type of wireless protocol” than the protocol used to transport PPDUs on the link, contradicts the ordinary meaning of “access to a link of the ML,” and the term is indefinite.
Regarding the “shared-band” disclosed in the Specification supra, and the corresponding “shares frequency band” limitation in the claims, the IEEE 802.11be/D5.0 provides that each link may have multiple nonoverlapping operating channels, each channel having an operating band – See, e.g., id., at page 61-62, defining primary and secondary channels with bandwidths of up to 320MHz for EHT STAs. A channel band is different from (albeit related to) a frequency band (spectrum) out of which multiple channels are “carved out”; multiple STAs can share a channel for transmission – See id., at page 61, defining OFDM access to physical layer, e.g., a radio link/channel, to send PPDUs in EHT, as “PPDU that is transmitted using more than one resource unit (RU) or multiple resource unit (MRU). Each of them is allocated to a different station (STA).” Although multiple STAs2 may share a channel on a link, they all use the same protocol, while the claimed invention requires a non-WLAN device using a different protocol, to be granted access to such shared link, contradicting the ordinary meaning of a shared link as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art3.
For these reasons, Claims 1 and 14 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For examination purpose, the limitation “grant to a device to share access to a link of the ML” would be interpreted as simply allowing non-WLAN transmission using a radio/antenna that is otherwise currently used for transmission on a link of the ML setup at the MLD, in accord with some parts of the present Specification as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, 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 1-6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0413261 (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Jiang teaches in Figs. 3 and 7, a system comprising:
a multi-link device (MLD) comprising one or more processors coupled with memory (“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] e.g., the Wireless Device 106 in Fig. 6) and a method by the MLD (“a method may comprise, at a wireless device” – See [¶0156]) to:
establish a multi-link (ML) comprising a plurality of links across different frequency bands (“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] e.g., over different 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.llbe, 8O2.11bX, Wi-Fi 8, etc.) specification documents” – See [¶0084], whereby, e.g., IEEE 802.11be/D5.0 shows in Figure AF-23, at page 1018, 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 band);
grant a device to share access to a link of the ML with at least onewireless device 106 may establish first communication with an AP 112 (703a),” i.e., a WLAN device, “and second communication with a second device 702 (703b)” whereby “– See [¶0086] whereby “the first and second communication are overlapping (e.g., according to TDM) and/or that the second communication may cause coexistence interference for the first communication,” e.g., use the same 2.5GHZ frequency band, and the “wireless device may determine one or more characteristics of the second communication” – See [¶0089], e.g., that “during a coexistence (co-ex) event . . . a co-located radio (e.g., BT, BLE, cellular) may have higher priority than WLAN,” – See [¶0078] i.e, the wireless device 106 granted access/enabled BT transmission on its radio working on 2.48 GHz)
the device communicating using a different type of wireless protocol than a protocol of the WLAN device that shares a frequency band with the device (“another RAT (e.g., Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), cellular, etc.) is active at [the] wireless device” – See id.);
block a WLAN communication of the WLAN device on the link of the ML to be used by device for communicating (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] and “the AP must honor such an indication from the wireless device in the method of FIG. 7 by stopping transmitting to the wireless device during periods when device may not be available based on the communication pattern” – See [¶0129]); the see also IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, Figure 5-2b, at page 79, showing MAC data plane architecture for AP MLD and affiliated APs, stating “AP MLD buffers an individually addressed frame if all the affiliated non-AP STAs, for which the TID of the MPDU carried in the frame is mapped to, are in the doze state” and in § 35.3.18, at page 577, that “[e]ach EMLMR STA4 independently maintains its own power management mode and the awake/doze state in power save mode”);
direct WLAN transmissions of the WLAN device to a non-shared link5 of the ML at least while the device performs activity on the link (“the wireless device may determine bandwidth characteristic(s) such as a (e.g., starting) center frequency f0, a frequency hopping pattern (e.g., if used for the second communication), and/or a bandwidth (W)” – See [¶0095] and “may transmit, to the AP, an indication of the characteristic(s),” e.g., “an action frame may include the indication” – See [¶0097] e.g., “if bandwidth characteristics are used, the second communication may be multiplexed (e.g., FDM) with the first communication, e.g., at times that the second communication is active” – See [¶0124] and “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] “when BT traffic starts and a co-existence scheme is in place” as indicated by “the wireless device [in] an action frame to the AP” and “[t]he wireless device may send updates when/if scheduling changes for the co-existence scheme. For periodic communication, a start time (t0), period (T), and/or duration (D) may be indicated” – See [¶0098]; furthermore, “other bandwidths” are one of the 5GHz or 6GHz in Figure AF-23, IEEE 802.11be/D5.0 at page 10018 supra); and
allow the WLAN device to resume WLAN transmission on the link responsive to the device completing activity on the link (even 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).
Therefore, Claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, dependent from 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 anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, dependent from 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 anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, dependent from 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 link6 of the ML is capable of communicating the WLAN communication (“the wireless device may determine bandwidth characteristic(s) such as a (e.g., starting) center frequency f0, a frequency hopping pattern (e.g., if used for the second communication), and/or a bandwidth (W)” of the second device – See [¶0095]; furthermore, IEEE P802.11be/D5.0 provides, at page 66, a MLD max idle period7 “during which the AP MLD does not disassociate a non-AP MLD due to nonreceipt of frames from the non-AP MLD on at least one of the setup links,” therefore, the wireless device makes the determination that the radio of a unused link supports the frequency band of the second device); and
grant (by the MLD) the device to share access to the link in response to the determination (“when BT traffic starts and a co-existence scheme is in place, the wireless device may send an action frame to the AP indicating the fixed WLAN time” or “a maximum duration (e.g., of the second communication) may also be indicated” – See [¶0098] so that the unused link is not dissociated by the AP, i.e., in response to the determination).
Therefore, Claims 4 and 17 are anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, dependent from Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
determine (by the MLD) the link is used for the activity of the device (“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
block (by the MLD) the WLAN communication of the WLAN device in response to the determination (“when BT traffic starts and a co-existence scheme is [not] in place” – See [¶0098] the wireless device may use “unscheduled automatic power save deliver (U-APSD) and/or target wake time (TWT)” so that “the AP is aware of a target absence time”; furthermore, “the frame of target absence period indication may include additional information about the communication pattern of the second communication ( e.g., periodic duration of absence time)” and “the AP must honor such an indication from the wireless device in the method of FIG. 7 by stopping transmitting to the wireless device during periods when the device may not be available based on the communication pattern” – See [¶0128] and Fig. 8; see also IEEE 802.11 providing in §4.3.19.21, at page 240, that “U-APSD coexistence capability enables the non-AP STA to indicate a requested transmission duration to the AP for use of U-APSD service periods” and “the transmission duration enables the AP to transmit frames during the service period and improve the likelihood that the non-AP STA receives the frames when the non-AP STA is experiencing interference” and at page 1036, in Figure AF-47, an example of TWT agreements negotiation across multiple links).
Therefore, Claims 5 and 18 are anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, dependent from Claims 1 and 14, respectively, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
identify (by the MLD) a time duration during which the 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 (by the MLD) 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; 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 anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from 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 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” – 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, Claim 8 is anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 9, dependent from 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 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 2.5GHz 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])
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]).
Therefore, Claim 9 is anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 10, Jiang teaches in Fig. 7, 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 RATs8” – See [¶0062] because “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 MLD), comprising: one or more processors coupled with memory (as shown in Figs. 5-6) to:
allocate, from a multi-link (ML) comprising a plurality of links across different frequency bands (e.g., Wireless device 106 may be the non-AP MLD in Figure AF-23, IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, at page 1018, 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)” as shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
324
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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)
a shared link of the ML 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 (the 2.5GHz radio link is for 20MHz/smaller bandwidth communications, whereby, e.g., “[c]onsider BLE (second communication) and WLAN (first communication) as an example. BLE connection events (802a, 802b, 802c) may be T=15 ms apart” then “up to 7 BLE packets per connection interval may be transmitted” – See [¶0092]);
block WLAN communications transmitted to the WLAN device on the shared link at least while there is at least one active connection with the device (“during a coexistence (co-ex) event when a co-located radio (e.g., BT, BLE, cellular) may have higher priority than WLAN” so the wireless device will block WLAN transmissions because “[d]ifferent RATs may operate according to various time division multiplexing patterns, e.g., due to hardware limitations at a wireless device” and “performance of one RAT ( e.g., WLAN) may be significantly impacted during a time period when another RAT ( e.g., Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), cellular, etc.) is active at a wireless device” – See [¶0078]); 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 (“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] and “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, Claim 10 is anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 11, dependent from Claim 10, further teaches the MLD of claim 10, comprising the one or more processors to:
detect an active connection with the 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 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, Claim 11 is anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Claim 11, 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 anticipated by Jiang, Claim 12 is anticipated by Jiang.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Claim 10, further teaches the MDL 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, Claim 13 is anticipated by Jiang.
In sum, Claims 1-6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Jiang.
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 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Jiang, as applied to Claims 1 and 14 above, 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 Claims 7 and 20, dependent from Claims 1 and 14, respectively, anticipated by Jiang, Jiang further teaches the system of claim 1, comprising the one or more processors to:
identify (by the MLD) 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 (by the MLD) the identified one or more MPDUs to the non-shared link for communication with the WLAN device via the non-shared link.
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, cited on Slide 24 of the Agenda, 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, cited on Slide 23 of the Agenda, discloses that “[t]here are some scenarios that a STA can not, 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 can not 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, 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.
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;
(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. keywords: {Radio links;Resource management; Throughput; Wireless fidelity;Optimization;Wireless sensor networks;Reliability;AP-STA pairing;multi-access point (AP) coordination;multilink operation (MLO);radio link allocation;Wi-Fi 7}.
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 Section 35.3.5 also states, at page 515, that “for any two links that are part of the links requested or accepted by the ML (re)setup, each link is located on different nonoverlapping operating channels”; see also §35.3.7 disclosing MLD link management.
2 The standard defines station (STA) as “[a] logical entity that is a singly addressable instance of a medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) interface to the wireless medium (WM)” – See 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” (hereinafter IEEE 802.11); see also Annex AF.2.1, IEEE 802.11be/D5.0, at page 1007-1008, showing in Figure AF-1 and example of Basic Multi-Link element in an Association Request frame comprising operational characteristics for each STA sharing access to a ML link.
3 See also IEEE 802.11-23/1964r1, Title: “Coexistence Protocols for UHR,” Source: Qualcomm, published November, 2023, Slide 2, stating: “A STA can share its radio resources with other technologies (BT, etc.) or with other STAs that are affiliated with the same MLD” whereby sharing may be “Time/Frequency: Link becomes (partially) unavailable at certain times” or “Antennae: Subset of antennas (SS) becomes unavailable” but there is no “shared-link” as claimed.
4 The standard defines, at pages 60 and 62, a single radio non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD): as “[a] non-AP MLD that supports operation on more than one link but receives or transmits frames only on one link at a time”; 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.”
5 The Specification discloses a “non-shared link” as 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 [¶¶0010-11].
6 The Specification defines “an unused link (e.g., non-shared link) of the ML” – See [¶0088].
7 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.”
8 Including a case where the Wireless device 106 performs enhanced multi-link multi-radio (EMLMR) operations as provided by IEEE 802.11be/D5.0 and explained in Footnote 4.
Prosecution Insights