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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The following rejections apply the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Each reference is introduced only for the limitation for which it is relied upon, and each combination includes an articulated reason with rational underpinning.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2023/0209391 A1, hereinafter Choi) in view of Shapira, US 2014/0355532 A1 ("Shapira").
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches: “a first station comprising a transmitter and a receiver and being configured to communicate with a first station of a second multi-link device on a first link”; “being configured to receive control information from another first station of the second multi-link device on a second link different from the first link”; “circuitry configured to control the first and second stations”; and “wherein the second station is configured to provide the received control information to the circuitry and/or the first station.” Choi ¶¶ 94-108, 107-117, 132-159; Figs. 8-9 and 15-18. Choi does not teach: “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” because Shapira discloses a separately tuned auxiliary reception-only RX chain, distinct from the primary TX/RX chain, that supplies received information to common control circuitry. Shapira ¶¶ 9, 14-15, 18, 23-26, 31-32, 36-40, 47-50. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to implement Choi's additional receiver resource as Shapira's auxiliary reception-only chain while retaining Choi's primary TX/RX station. Shapira expressly identifies concurrent alternative-channel monitoring without interrupting normal operation and reduced added cost, size, and power as benefits. Shapira ¶¶ 15, 25-26, 36-37. The modification would have predictably allowed Choi's MLD to receive second-link control information while communicating on the first link, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references concern IEEE 802.11 devices employing a primary communication chain and an additional differently tuned receiver resource. Shapira does not teach: “being configured to receive control information from another first station of the second multi-link device on a second link different from the first link.” Choi teaches that exact multi-link control-information limitation; Shapira is relied upon only for “a receiver but no transmitter.” Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches: “the first station is configured to transmit control information or preprocessed control information received by the second station and provide said control information to the first station of the second multi-link device and/or another communication device.” Choi ¶¶ 95-108, 110-117, 132-155. Choi does not teach: “control information or preprocessed control information received by the second station,” where the second station is “a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: “control information or preprocessed control information received by the second station,” because Shapira supplies information received by the auxiliary reception-only RX chain to common BBIC/control circuitry for use by the primary TX/RX chain. Shapira ¶¶ 18, 24, 36-40, 47-50. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The same motivation stated for claim 1 applies. Routing the auxiliary receiver's information through the common control circuitry and primary transmitting chain is the architecture expressly taught by Shapira and would predictably permit information received on the alternative link to be acted upon or transmitted without adding a transmitter to the auxiliary chain. Shapira does not teach: “provide said control information to the first station of the second multi-link device and/or another communication device.” Choi teaches that exact transmission destination; Shapira supplies the receiver-only forwarding architecture. Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches: “the control information includes one or more of: link information indicating one or more of length of a received data unit, bandwidth of the received data unit, transmit opportunity duration, network allocation vector (NAV), received power, basic service set (BSS) identifier of the received data unit, restricted channel information of the received data unit, and state information indicating busy or idle state of the second link”; and “operation advice information indicating reception of control information for configuring or reconfiguring the operation of the first multi-link device.” Choi ¶¶ 95-108, 132-150. Because claim 3 requires “one or more of” the alternatives, a taught alternative satisfies the recitation. Choi does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” and supplies its received alternative-channel information to a control unit. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 18, 23-26, 36-40, 47-50. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The motivation stated for claim 1 applies. The combination uses Shapira's receiver-only chain to obtain the link/channel information that Choi already uses for multi-link selection and control, producing the predictable benefit of uninterrupted low-power monitoring. Shapira does not teach: “link information indicating one or more of length of a received data unit, bandwidth of the received data unit, transmit opportunity duration, network allocation vector (NAV), received power, basic service set (BSS) identifier of the received data unit, restricted channel information of the received data unit, and state information indicating busy or idle state of the second link” or “operation advice information indicating reception of control information for configuring or reconfiguring the operation of the first multi-link device.” Choi teaches the alternatively recited control information. Accordingly, claim 3 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches: “the second station is configured to use one or more pieces of the control information for one or more of: controlling the first station to be steered to idle links; controlling the first station to switch to another link; controlling itself to be steered to other links to receive control information from another communication device; and performing a contention window (CW) countdown for the first station to transmit after the CW countdown.” Choi ¶¶ 132-155; Figs. 15-18. Claim 4 requires “one or more of” the listed alternatives. Choi does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” and use of information received by that auxiliary RX chain to control the primary TX/RX chain on another channel. Shapira ¶¶ 36-40, 47-50. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: A skilled artisan would have used Shapira's auxiliary receiver results to drive Choi's link selection and steering because Shapira expressly uses the auxiliary-chain results to control the primary communication chain. The combination predictably preserves primary-link communication while selecting a usable alternative link. Shapira does not teach: “controlling the first station to be steered to idle links” in the claimed multi-link-device context. Choi teaches the exact steering/switching alternatives; Shapira supplies the receiver-only chain. Accordingly, claim 4 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches: “the first station is configured to collect configuration information from the second multi-link device” and “the circuitry is configured to configure the second station, based on the collected configuration information, to receive control information from a link provided by the second multi-link device and not used by the first station.” Choi ¶¶ 94-108, 132-150. Choi does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” configured on a channel different from the primary TX/RX chain and managed by common control circuitry. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: A skilled artisan would have configured Shapira's auxiliary RX chain according to the link information collected in Choi so that control information could be received on the unused link without retuning or interrupting the primary chain. This is the predictable use of Shapira's differently tuned auxiliary chain for its stated monitoring function. Shapira does not teach: “the first station is configured to collect configuration information from the second multi-link device.” Choi teaches that exact limitation. Accordingly, claim 9 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 18, Choi teaches: “one or more first stations, each configured to communicate with one or more first stations of other multi-link devices and/or other communication devices on different links” and “one or more second stations, each configured to receive data from one or more first stations of other multi-link devices and/or other communication devices on a link that is different from a link used by one of the first stations of the first multi-link device.” Choi ¶¶ 94-117, 132-155; Figs. 8-9 and 15-18. Choi does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” through an auxiliary receiver-only chain operating on a different channel from a primary TX/RX chain. Shapira ¶¶ 9, 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The motivation stated for claim 1 applies. Repeating the known primary/auxiliary arrangement for the links supported by Choi is a predictable scaling of the multi-link architecture, allowing reception on a link different from the link used by a first station. Shapira does not teach: “one or more first stations, each configured to communicate with one or more first stations of other multi-link devices and/or other communication devices on different links.” Choi teaches that exact multi-link limitation. Accordingly, claim 18 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 19, Choi teaches: “communicating, by a first station comprising a transmitter and a receiver, with a first station of a second multi-link device on a first link”; “receiving, by a second station, control information from another first station of the second multi-link device on a second link different from the first link and/or from another communication device”; “controlling, by circuitry, the first and second stations”; and “providing the received control information to the circuitry and/or the first station.” Choi ¶¶ 107-117, 132-159; Figs. 15-18. Choi does not teach: “receiving, by a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: “receiving, by a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” through concurrent alternative-channel reception by an auxiliary reception-only chain under common control. Shapira ¶¶ 9, 14-15, 18, 23-26, 31-32, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The motivation stated for claim 1 applies equally to the corresponding method: uninterrupted alternative-link reception with reduced added cost, size, and power and a reasonable expectation of success in an IEEE 802.11 device. Shapira does not teach: “receiving, by a second station, control information from another first station of the second multi-link device on a second link different from the first link and/or from another communication device.” Choi teaches that exact multi-link method limitation. Accordingly, claim 19 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Regarding claim 20, Choi teaches: “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the method according to claim 19 to be performed,” except for the receiver-only limitation incorporated through claim 19. Choi ¶¶ 157-159. Choi does not teach: the incorporated limitation “receiving, by a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches: the incorporated limitation “receiving, by a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” and software stored on non-transitory tangible media for programmed control. Shapira ¶¶ 31-32, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: It would have been obvious to store the instructions implementing the combined method on the expressly disclosed non-transitory medium so that the programmed processor performs the combined WLAN functions. This is the ordinary, expressly contemplated implementation of the processor-controlled operations. Shapira does not teach: “causes the method according to claim 19 to be performed” in Choi’s specific multi-link sequence. Choi teaches that programmed sequence. Accordingly, claim 20 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira.
Claims 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Ghosh et al., US 2023/0043667 A1 ("Ghosh").
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches: the inherited limitations of claim 1 and “a link switch operation” in which a link is selected for subsequent exchange. Choi ¶¶ 132-155. Choi does not teach: “the first station is configured to respect a minimum observation period before it transmits after a link switch operation” or “if control information is present from a second station that obtained control information of the link to which the first station switched, to reduce or ignore the minimum observation period.” Shapira teaches: “control information is present from a second station that obtained control information of the link to which the first station switched,” because its auxiliary receiver evaluates another channel while the primary chain continues normal communication and provides the result to common control circuitry. Shapira ¶¶ 36-40, 47-50. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The claim-1 motivation applies: the auxiliary receiver supplies advance knowledge concerning the target channel without interrupting primary communication. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “the first station is configured to respect a minimum observation period before it transmits after a link switch operation” and “to reduce or ignore the minimum observation period.” Ghosh teaches: “the first station is configured to respect a minimum observation period before it transmits after a link switch operation” and use of previously obtained target-channel information “to reduce or ignore the minimum observation period.” Exact Ghosh pinpoint paragraphs must be verified before mailing. Motivation to further combine Ghosh with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to use the target-link information already obtained by Shapira's auxiliary receiver to reduce or omit the observation delay before Choi's primary station transmits after switching. Doing so predictably avoids redundant observation, reduces switch latency, and preserves collision avoidance because the decision is conditioned on current control information from the target link. A skilled artisan would have expected success because all three references use receiver-obtained channel information to govern IEEE 802.11 channel access. Ghosh does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches that exact limitation. Accordingly, claim 5 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Ghosh.
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches: “the second station obtains the control information from a control frame transmitted in a physical layer data unit,” but not the recited modulation restriction. Choi ¶¶ 107-117, 134-149. Choi does not teach: “a physical layer data unit that applies only legacy modulation and coding.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” and delivery of its received information to common control circuitry. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 18, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The claim-1 motivation applies: second-link control reception is assigned to a low-cost auxiliary reception-only chain. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “a physical layer data unit that applies only legacy modulation and coding.” Ghosh teaches: “a control frame transmitted in a physical layer data unit that applies only legacy modulation and coding.” Exact Ghosh pinpoint paragraphs must be verified before mailing. Motivation to further combine Ghosh with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to carry the control frame received by the auxiliary station in a legacy-modulated PPDU so the simpler auxiliary receiver can reliably decode the control information across device generations while avoiding advanced-PHY transmit/receive complexity. The result is predictable interoperability and reduced receiver complexity, with a reasonable expectation of success because legacy control-frame formats are standardized WLAN signaling. Ghosh does not teach: the inherited limitations “first multi-link device” and “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Choi and Shapira teach those exact limitations. Accordingly, claim 12 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Ghosh.
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches: “the control information received by the second station” in multi-link WLAN operation. Choi ¶¶ 107-117, 132-150. Choi does not teach: “a physical layer data unit that is split into a first part that applies legacy modulation and coding and a second part that applies advanced modulation and coding” or “the second station is configured to decode and demodulate only the first part of said physical layer data unit to obtain said control information.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” implemented as a reduced-complexity auxiliary receiver supplying received information to common control circuitry. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The claim-1 motivation applies: use the low-cost auxiliary chain for second-link control reception. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “a physical layer data unit that is split into a first part that applies legacy modulation and coding and a second part that applies advanced modulation and coding” and “decode and demodulate only the first part.” Ghosh teaches: “a physical layer data unit that is split into a first part that applies legacy modulation and coding and a second part that applies advanced modulation and coding,” and obtaining control information by “decode and demodulate only the first part of said physical layer data unit.” Exact Ghosh pinpoint paragraphs must be verified before mailing. Motivation to further combine Ghosh with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to place the control information needed by the auxiliary receiver in the legacy-decodable first portion and permit the auxiliary receiver to stop after decoding that portion. This predictably reduces receiver processing and power while maintaining backward-compatible control reception, with a reasonable expectation of success because the legacy and advanced portions are deliberately structured for that coexistence. Ghosh does not teach: the inherited limitations “first multi-link device” and “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Choi and Shapira teach those exact limitations. Accordingly, claim 13 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Ghosh.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Liu et al., US 2021/0282210 A1, Fast Link Switch Between Multilink Devices ("Liu").
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches: the inherited limitations of claims 1 and 4, including “controlling the first station to switch to another link.” Choi ¶¶ 132-155. Choi does not teach: “to transmit a link switch announcement to the second multi-link device and/or another communication device including link switch timing indicating the time and/or duration of the link switch operation.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” but does not teach the exact link-switch-announcement limitation. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The motivation stated for claims 1 and 4 applies: alternative-link monitoring supports steering the primary chain without interrupting current communication. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “to transmit a link switch announcement to the second multi-link device and/or another communication device including link switch timing indicating the time and/or duration of the link switch operation.” Liu teaches: “the first station is configured to switch the link used for the communication with the second multi-link device and/or another communication device” and “to transmit a link switch announcement to the second multi-link device and/or another communication device including link switch timing indicating the time and/or duration of the link switch operation.” Liu ¶¶ 33-40, 51-57, 66-75; Figs. 4-5 and 9-11. Motivation to further combine Liu with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to include switch timing or duration in Liu's switch alert when applying it to the Choi-Shapira system so the peer MLD knows when the transmitting radio will leave the old link and become available on the new link. Liu teaches that fast coordination is needed to avoid data loss and support extremely low latency. The modification predictably synchronizes the two MLDs and prevents transmissions during the switching interval, with a reasonable expectation of success because Liu's alert already coordinates the same link-switch event. Liu does not teach: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Shapira teaches that exact limitation. Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Liu.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Canon, WO 2017/009209 A1, Trigger Frames Adapted to Packet-Based Policies in an 802.11 Network ("Canon").
Regarding claim 16, Choi teaches: the inherited limitations of claim 1, including second-link control-information reception. Choi ¶¶ 94-117, 132-159. Choi does not teach: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply legacy modulation and coding and/or that are modulated and encoded by a modulation coding scheme of a basic rate set.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” but not the exact legacy/basic-rate-set limitation. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The claim-1 motivation applies: use the simpler receiver-only chain for control reception on another link. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply legacy modulation and coding and/or that are modulated and encoded by a modulation coding scheme of a basic rate set.” Canon teaches: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply legacy modulation and coding and/or that are modulated and encoded by a modulation coding scheme of a basic rate set.” Canon ¶¶ 5-15, 63-75 and the discussion of non-HT control frames and basic-rate-compatible reception. Motivation to further combine Canon with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to configure Shapira's auxiliary receiver to support Canon's legacy/non-HT control PPDU because doing so permits broadly decodable control signaling using a robust standardized modulation/coding format while keeping the auxiliary receiver simple. The result is predictable backward-compatible control reception with a reasonable expectation of success in an IEEE 802.11 WLAN. Canon does not teach: the inherited limitations “first multi-link device” and “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Choi and Shapira teach those exact limitations. Accordingly, claim 16 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Canon.
Regarding claim 17, Choi teaches: the inherited limitations of claim 1, including second-link control-information reception. Choi ¶¶ 94-117, 132-159. Choi does not teach: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply non-high throughput (non-HT) or non-HT duplicate transmission format.” Shapira teaches: the inherited limitation “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter,” but not the exact non-HT/non-HT-duplicate limitation. Shapira ¶¶ 14-15, 23-26, 36-40. Motivation to combine Choi and Shapira: The claim-1 motivation applies. The Choi-Shapira combination does not teach: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply non-high throughput (non-HT) or non-HT duplicate transmission format.” Canon teaches: “the second station is configured to support reception of physical layer data units that apply non-high throughput (non-HT) or non-HT duplicate transmission format.” Canon ¶¶ 5-15, 63-75. Motivation to further combine Canon with Choi-Shapira: It would have been obvious to configure the auxiliary receiver to receive Canon's non-HT and non-HT duplicate control formats because those formats place robust, legacy-decodable control signaling on the relevant component channels. The combination predictably improves control-frame detectability and backward compatibility without adding transmitter complexity to the auxiliary station. Canon does not teach: the inherited limitations “first multi-link device” and “a second station comprising a receiver but no transmitter.” Choi and Shapira teach those exact limitations. Accordingly, claim 17 would have been obvious over Choi in view of Shapira and further in view of Canon.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7-8, 10-11, and 14-15 are objected to as depending from a rejected claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. On the present record, the applied references do not establish the following added limitations:
Claims 7-8: the specifically recited EMLSR control-frame operation and the claimed direction-dependent or setup-signaled EMLSR link-switch delay. Claims 10-11: advertising the existence, parameters, and capabilities of the receiver-only second station and establishing agreements applicable to that second station/second link as recited. Claims 14-15: suspending reception after the legacy first part, resuming once the PPDU ends, and determining the suspension/resumption timing from the detected format or length signaled in the first part.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights