DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 23 July 2024, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-28.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym QoS recited in line 1 of the abstract must be written as “Quality of Service (QoS)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
The acronym AP recited in line 2 of the abstract must be written as “Access Point (AP)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
The acronym MLD recited in line 2 of the abstract must be written as “Multi-Link Device (MLD)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
4. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “Claim” recited in line 1 of claims 2-10 and 12-20 must be written as “claim” in lowercase letters. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “scheduling uplink and downlink resources” in line 11. The limitation is not adequately described in the specification to enable one of ordinary skilled in the art to make or use the invention. The word “resources” is a broad term and the specification does not provide an example of what these “resources” may be.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “scheduling uplink and downlink resources” in line 14. The limitation is not adequately described in the specification to enable one of ordinary skilled in the art to make or use the invention. The word “resources” is a broad term and the specification does not provide an example of what these “resources” may be.
6. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “scheduling uplink and downlink resources” in line 11. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “resources” is a broad term and the specification does not provide an example of what these “resources” may be. Thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art cannot objectively assess a meaning to the word “resources.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “scheduling uplink and downlink resources” in line 14. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “resources” is a broad term and the specification does not provide an example of what these “resources” may be. Thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art cannot objectively assess a meaning to the word “resources.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 2025/0071656 A1).
For claims 1 and 11, Li discloses a method of wireless communication performed by an access point (AP) associated with an AP multi-link device (MLD) (Fig 4, AP-MLD), the method comprising:
receiving an indication of quality of service (QoS) requirements from a non-AP MLD (Fig 4, STA is the non-AP MLD) ([0048] AP receives a SCS request from STA indicating the QoS requirements for data traffic);
determining whether an existing target wake time (TWT) or existing links are sufficient to meet QoS requirements ([0111] the first node (AP) determines whether a first link satisfies the QoS requirements);
when the existing TWT or existing links are not sufficient to meet the QoS requirements, transmitting a message to the non-AP MLD indicating a need to negotiate additional TWT service periods (SPs) or to transition additional enabled links to an active mode or enable additional links with the AP MLD ([0117] and [0113] first node (AP) transmits a request message to second node (non-AP MLD) when it determines that the first link does not satisfy the QoS requirements and [0114] the second node determines whether other established links (i.e., enabled links) can satisfy the QoS requirements and [0115] the other/second link(s) is/are switched to active mode); and
when the existing TWT or existing links are sufficient to meet the QoS requirements, scheduling uplink or downlink resources to meet the QoS requirements ([0048] data is transmitted based on SCS request information when there are sufficient resources to meet the indicated QoS requirements).
For claims 2 and 12, Li discloses receiving information from the non-AP MLD indicating links that the non-AP MLD can use for satisfying the QoS requirements ([0115-0116] during the negotiation between the first node (AP MLD) and second node (STA/non-AP MLD), the other links that need to be activated are identified to satisfy the QoS requirements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2025/0071656 A1) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 2023/0146138 A1) reference disclosed by applicant.
For claim 10, Li does not expressly disclose transmitting a frame to the non-AP MLD to recommend: links to be used for uplink and downlink transmissions for load balancing; links to be used to retrieve buffered traffic at the AP MLD; links to be used for group-addressed frame reception; links to be used for TWT negotiations; or links to be used for enhanced multi-link single radio/enhanced multi-link multi radio (EMLSR/EMLMR) operations.
Asterjadhi, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches transmitting a frame to the non-AP MLD to recommend: links to be used for uplink and downlink transmissions for load balancing ([0124] auxiliary links to be activated for downlink data); links to be used for TWT negotiations ([0136-0137] beacon frames are transmitted between the AP MLD and non-AP MLD to negotiate TWT schedule for auxiliary links to be activated). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the TWT negotiation method of Asterjadhi in the communication network of Li at the time of the invention to select links for TWT service periods.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-9 and 13-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights