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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 08/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,8 and 15 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US12069507B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-14 of Patent No. US12069507B2 incorporates all the limitations of the claims 1-20 of instant application.
Instant Application 18/801951
Patent No. US12069507B2
Claim 1, A method comprising: receiving, by a non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) from an access point (AP) MLD, an association frame indicating a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link (TID-to-link) mapping that maps a TID to a first link; receiving, from the AP MLD, a first trigger frame on a second link to which the TID is not mapped, wherein the first trigger frame comprises a buffer status report poll (BSRP) trigger frame or a basic trigger frame; and transmitting, to the AP MLD, in response to the first trigger frame, a Quality of Service (QoS) null frame comprising the TID on the second link, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a first buffer status report (BSR) for the TID.
Claim 1, A non-access point (non-AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising: one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the non-AP MLD to: receive, from an access point (AP) MLD, an association frame comprising a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link (TID-to-link) mapping that maps a TID to a first link; transmit, to the AP MLD, a first frame for the TID on the first link;
receive, from the AP MLD, a first trigger frame on a second link to which the TID is not mapped, wherein the first trigger frame comprises a buffer status report poll (BSRP) trigger frame or a basic trigger frame; and transmit, to the AP MLD, in response to the first trigger frame, a Quality of Service (QoS) null frame comprising the TID on the second link, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a first buffer status report (BSR) for the TID.
Claim 2, wherein the second link is an enabled link to which at least one TID is mapped according to the TID-to-link mapping.
Claim 2, wherein the second link is an enabled link to which at least one TID is mapped according to the TID-to-link mapping.
Claim 3, wherein the first frame for the TID comprises a Medium Access Control (MAC) Service Data Unit (MSDU) or an Aggregated MSDU (A-MSDU) for the TID.
Claim 3, wherein the first frame for the TID comprises a Medium Access Control (MAC) Service Data Unit (MSDU) or an Aggregated MSDU (A-MSDU) for the TID.
Claim 4, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a second BSR for another TID mapped to the second link.
Claim 4, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a second BSR for another TID mapped to the second link.
Claim 5, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a QoS control field or a BSR control subfield that comprises the first BSR for the TID.
Claim 5, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a QoS control field or a BSR control subfield that comprises the first BSR for the TID.
Claim 6, wherein the QoS null frame comprises the QoS control field, and wherein the QoS control field comprises a TID subfield identifying a traffic class (TC) or a traffic stream (TS) for which a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is requested by the non-AP MLD.
Claim 6, wherein the QoS null frame comprises the QoS control field, and wherein the QoS control field comprises a TID subfield identifying a traffic class (TC) or a traffic stream (TS) for which a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is requested by the non-AP MLD.
Claim 7, receiving, from the AP MLD, in response to the QoS null frame, a second trigger frame on the first link, the second trigger frame allocating uplink resources on the first link to the non-AP MLD for the TID; and transmitting, to the AP MLD, in response to the second trigger frame, a second frame comprising a QoS data frame for the TID.
Claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the non-AP MLD to:
receive, from the AP MLD, in response to the QoS null frame, a second trigger frame on the first link, the second trigger frame allocating uplink resources on the first link to the non-AP MLD for the TID; and
transmit, to the AP MLD, in response to the second trigger frame, a second frame comprising a QoS data frame for the TID.
Claims 8,15, A method comprising: transmitting, by an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) to a non-access point (non-AP) MLD, an association frame comprising a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link (TID-to-link) mapping that maps a TID to a first link; receiving, from the non-AP MLD, a first frame for the TID on the first link; transmitting, to the non-AP MLD, a first trigger frame on a second link to which the TID is not mapped, wherein the first trigger frame comprises a buffer status report poll (BSRP) trigger frame or a basic trigger frame; and receiving, from the non-AP MLD, in response to the first trigger frame, a Quality of Service (QoS) null frame comprising the TID on the second link, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a first buffer status report (BSR) for the TID.
Claim 8, An access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the AP MLD to: transmit, to a non-access point (non-AP) MLD, an association frame comprising a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link (TID-to-link) mapping that maps a TID to a first link;
receive, from the non-AP MLD, a first frame for the TID on the first link;
transmit, to the non-AP MLD, a first trigger frame on a second link to which the TID is not mapped, wherein the first trigger frame comprises a buffer status report poll (BSRP) trigger frame or a basic trigger frame; and receive, from the non-AP MLD, in response to the first trigger frame, a Quality of Service (QoS) null frame comprising the TID on the second link, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a first buffer status report (BSR) for the TID.
Claims 9,16, wherein the second link is an enabled link to which at least one TID is mapped according to the TID-to-link mapping.
Claim 9, wherein the second link is an enabled link to which at least one TID is mapped according to the TID-to-link mapping.
Claims 10,17, wherein the first frame for the TID comprises a Medium Access Control (MAC) Service Data Unit (MSDU) or an Aggregated MSDU (A-MSDU) for the TID.
Claim 10, wherein the first frame for the TID comprises a Medium Access Control (MAC) Service Data Unit (MSDU) or an Aggregated MSDU (A-MSDU) for the TID.
Claims 11,18, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a second BSR for another TID mapped to the second link.
Claim 11, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a second BSR for another TID mapped to the second link.
Claims 12,19, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a QoS control field or a BSR control subfield that comprises the first BSR for the TID.
Claim 12, wherein the QoS null frame comprises a QoS control field or a BSR control subfield that comprises the first BSR for the TID.
Claim 13, wherein the QoS null frame comprises the QoS control field, and wherein the QoS control field comprises a TID subfield identifying a traffic class (TC) or a traffic stream (TS) for which a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is requested by the non-AP MLD.
Claim 13, wherein the QoS null frame comprises the QoS control field, and wherein the QoS control field comprises a TID subfield identifying a traffic class (TC) or a traffic stream (TS) for which a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is requested by the non-AP MLD.
Claims 14,20, transmitting, to the non-AP MLD, in response to the QoS null frame, a second trigger frame on the first link, the second trigger frame allocating uplink resources on the first link to the non-AP MLD for the TID; and receiving, from the non-AP MLD, in response to the second trigger frame, a second frame comprising a QoS data frame for the TID.
Claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the AP MLD to: transmit, to the non-AP MLD, in response to the QoS null frame, a second trigger frame on the first link, the second trigger frame allocating uplink resources on the first link to the non-AP MLD for the TID; and receive, from the non-AP MLD, in response to the second trigger frame, a second frame comprising a QoS data frame for the TID.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of Patent US12069507B2 issued to Ryu contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application as seen in the above table.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under the nonstatutory double patenting set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 1,8,15 and its dependents thereof are allowed because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed invention of ““sending BSR trigger frame on a link not mapped a TID which is mapped to another link and receive buffer status report on the second link for the TID” in a timely manner in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Consequently, the disclosed independent claim is allowed on behalf of above-discussed reasons. Since the disclosed dependent claims are dependent on one of the above independent claims, therefore they are also patentable.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights