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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/27/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the Provisional filed on 9/5/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. US 20230030195 (hereinafter “Chu”).
As to claim 1 and 8 (claim 8 is the method claim for the device in claim 1):
Chu discloses:
A first multi-link device (MLD) comprising: first stations (STAs) each comprising a transceiver configured to form a link with a corresponding second STA of a second MLD (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu); and a processor operably coupled to the first STAs (“In some embodiments, the at least one controller is implemented within a processor, such as a microcontroller, a host processor, a host, a digital signal processor (DSP), or a central processing unit (CPU), which can be integrated in a corresponding transceiver.”, Chu [0021]), the processor configured to: receive a data unit for transmission to the second MLD, and fragment the data unit into at least two fragments, wherein the transceivers are further configured to transmit each of the fragments in separate frames to the corresponding second STAs of the second MLD over the corresponding links. (“FIG. 6 depicts an example fragmentation associated with the per-station profile of the multilink element 500 in accordance with an embodiment. The per-station profile may be fragmented when it is greater than 254 octets and subdivided into one or more fragments.”, Chu [0037]) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
As to claim 2 and 9 (claim 9 is the method claim for the device in claim 1):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein one of the transceivers is configured to transmit each of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding link. (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
As to claim 3 and 10 (claim 10 is the method claim for the device in claim 3):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein: one of the transceivers is configured to transmit at least one of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, and at least one of the other transceivers is configured to transmit each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STA over one of the corresponding other links. (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
As to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
As to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
As to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lanante et al. US 20250331045 (hereinafter “Lanante”)
As to claim 4 and 11 (claim 11 is the method claim for the device in claim 4):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein: a first of the transceivers is configured to transmit at least one of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, the first transceiver is further configured to transmit each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
Chu as described above does not explicitly teach:
and the other transceivers are configured to transmit a duplicate of each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STAs over one of the corresponding other links.
However, Lanante further teaches retransmitting portions of data on other channels which includes:
and the other transceivers are configured to transmit a duplicate of each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STAs over one of the corresponding other links. (“That is, as shown in FIG. 12, the transmission of the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on the primary channel CH1 may be synchronized with the transmission of a corresponding duplicate portion of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on CH2.”, Lanante [0134]) (“Thus, by duplicating the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 on its primary channel (CH1), AP2 allows STA22 which remained on CH1 to switch to the appropriate channel (CH2) for the multi-AP transmission.”, Lanante [0139])
Chu and Lanante are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as described in Lanante into Chu. By modifying the method to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as taught by Lanante, the benefits of improved simultaneous transmission (Lanante [0106]) and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
As to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim et al. US 20230309151 (hereinafter “Kim”)
As to claim 5 and 12 (claim 12 is the method claim for the device in claim 5):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein: one of the transceivers is configured to transmit at least one of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
and at least one of the other transceivers is configured to transmit each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STA over one of the corresponding other links. (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
Chu as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted,
However, Kim further teaches disabling transmission which includes:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted, (“When the station stops transmission, the station may transmit a fragment, which is being transmitted, and then may not transmit the following fragment. In a detailed embodiment, the station may immediately stop transmission of a packet which is being transmitted.”, Kim [0202])
Chu and Kim are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include disabling transmission as described in Kim into Chu. By modifying the method to include disabling transmission as taught by Kim, the benefits of improved transmission control (Kim [0202]) and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
As to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lanante et al. US 20250331045 (hereinafter “Lanante”) and Kim et al. US 20230309151 (hereinafter “Kim”)
As to claim 6 and 13 (claim 6 is the method claim for the device in claim 13):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein: one of the transceivers is configured to transmit at least one of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
Chu as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted,
and the other transceivers are configured to transmit a duplicate of each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STAs over one of the corresponding other links.
However, Lanante further teaches retransmitting portions of data on other channels which includes:
and the other transceivers are configured to transmit a duplicate of each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STAs over one of the corresponding other links. (“That is, as shown in FIG. 12, the transmission of the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on the primary channel CH1 may be synchronized with the transmission of a corresponding duplicate portion of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on CH2.”, Lanante [0134]) (“Thus, by duplicating the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 on its primary channel (CH1), AP2 allows STA22 which remained on CH1 to switch to the appropriate channel (CH2) for the multi-AP transmission.”, Lanante [0139])
Chu and Lanante are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as described in Lanante into Chu. By modifying the method to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as taught by Lanante, the benefits of improved simultaneous transmission (Lanante [0106]) and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
The combination of Chu and Lanante as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted,
However, Kim further teaches disabling transmission which includes:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted, (“When the station stops transmission, the station may transmit a fragment, which is being transmitted, and then may not transmit the following fragment. In a detailed embodiment, the station may immediately stop transmission of a packet which is being transmitted.”, Kim [0202])
Chu, Lanante, and Kim are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include disabling transmission as described in Kim into Chu as modified by Lanante. By modifying the method to include disabling transmission as taught by Kim, the benefits of improved transmission control (Kim [0202]), improved simultaneous transmission (Lanante [0106]), and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
As to claim 7 and 14 (claim 7 is the method claim for the device in claim 14):
Chu discloses:
The first MLD of claim 1, wherein: one of the transceivers is configured to transmit at least one of the fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding first link, (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
and transmit each of the other fragments to the corresponding second STA over the corresponding other link. (FIG. 1 shows multiple MLDs with APs and STAs communicating over multiple links, Chu) (“FIG. 7 depicts an example Action frame 700 which carries the multilink element having the per-station profile in accordance with an embodiment. The Action frame may be transmitted by a non-transmitted BSSID AP to a station of a non-AP MLD in response to a Probe Request from the station.”, Chu [0039])
Chu as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted,
and at least one of the other transceivers is configured to: retransmit the at least one fragment to the corresponding second STA over one of the corresponding other links;
However, Lanante further teaches retransmitting portions of data on other channels which includes:
and at least one of the other transceivers is configured to: retransmit the at least one fragment to the corresponding second STA over one of the corresponding other links; (“That is, as shown in FIG. 12, the transmission of the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on the primary channel CH1 may be synchronized with the transmission of a corresponding duplicate portion of MU PPDU 1202 transmitted on CH2.”, Lanante [0134]) (“Thus, by duplicating the portion 1204 of the preamble of MU PPDU 1202 on its primary channel (CH1), AP2 allows STA22 which remained on CH1 to switch to the appropriate channel (CH2) for the multi-AP transmission.”, Lanante [0139])
Chu and Lanante are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as described in Lanante into Chu. By modifying the method to include retransmitting portions of data on other channels as taught by Lanante, the benefits of improved simultaneous transmission (Lanante [0106]) and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
The combination of Chu and Lanante as described above does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted,
However, Kim further teaches disabling transmission which includes:
the processor is further configured to determine, after transmission of the at least one fragment, that the first link will be disabled or deleted, (“When the station stops transmission, the station may transmit a fragment, which is being transmitted, and then may not transmit the following fragment. In a detailed embodiment, the station may immediately stop transmission of a packet which is being transmitted.”, Kim [0202])
Chu, Lanante, and Kim are analogous because they pertain to multi-link devices.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include disabling transmission as described in Kim into Chu as modified by Lanante. By modifying the method to include disabling transmission as taught by Kim, the benefits of improved transmission control (Kim [0202]), improved simultaneous transmission (Lanante [0106]), and reduced network overhead (Chu [0025]) are achieved.
As to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
As to claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7 from the perspective of the receiving MLD .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights