DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on January 15, 2025 and March 31, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Notes
3. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/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.
Application Status
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the instant application, dated October 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The acronym “TID” appears multiple times, e.g., in paragraphs [0007], [0020], etc. It is suggested to explain what this acronym means in its first appearance in the specification.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “An access point multi-link device (AP MLD), comprising
a plurality of affiliated access points (APs),
wherein in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode,
each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link,
wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs,
in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state.”
The ending term “an awake state” seems to refer back to “an awake state” indicated in italics in the first wherein clause. If this is true, it is suggested to change the ending term to “the awake state.”
Regarding claim 10, it recites, “The AP MLD of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to control the AP MLD to enter the multi-link scheduling power saving mode based on a traffic load of the AP MLD, a transmission delay of the AP MLD, and/or a type of a non-AP STA associated with the AP MLD.”
The examiner objects the usage of the term “and/or” indicated in italics, since it is a non-positive claim limitation or optional claim limitation.
Regarding claim 15, it recites, “The AP MLD of claim 1, wherein when a third affiliated AP is associated with one or more STAs and the one or more STAs are in the active mode, the scheduling information includes a quiet element, a schedule element or TID-To-Link Mapping element for the third affiliated AP.”
It includes an acronym “TID” indicated in italics. It is suggested to explain what this acronym means in the claim.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claims 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
8. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, it recites, “The AP MLD of claim 2, wherein in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode,
when a first affiliated AP is in the doze state, and the first affiliated AP is associated with one or more non-MLD STAs that require low latency transmission service or associated with one or more legacy STAs in the awake state, the first affiliated AP switches to the lower capability mode in which a transmission capability of an AP is reduced, and
the one or more legacy STAs do not support the low latency traffic transmission.”
It depends from claim 2, and claim 2 recites, “The AP MLD of claim 1, wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more of the following fields related to the SPs:
working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the one or more SPs, wherein the working states include awake state and doze state,
starting times of the one or more SPs, and
time durations of the one or more SPs.”
The examiner rejects
Claim 2 includes the term “one or more of the following fields related to the SPs,” it leads to some optional elements, e.g., “doze state” indicated in italics.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the optional element does not narrow the claim because it can always be omitted. In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Consequently, claim 7 is rejected since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the term “the doze state,” as indicated in italics above.
Regarding claim 16, it recites, “The AP MLD of claim 1, wherein links of the plurality of affiliated APs are in the non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) operation mode.”
It depends from claim 1, and claim 1 recites, “An access point multi-link device (AP MLD), comprising
a plurality of affiliated access points (APs),
wherein in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode,
each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link,
wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs,
in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state.”
The examiner rejects claim 16, since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the ending term “the non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) operation mode.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
(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.
11. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0032089).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar et al. teach the access point multi-link device (AP MLD) (paragraph [0182] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: AP-MLD 1202 depicted in FIG. 12 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “access point multi-link device (AP MLD)” in the instant application), comprising
a plurality of affiliated access points (APs) (paragraph [0182] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: APs, e.g., AP1 1204 and AP2 1206 depicted in FIG. 12 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of affiliated access points (APs)” in the instant application),
wherein in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode, each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0075] lines 1-4; Examiner’s Notes: while ML scheduling in the power save state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a multi-link scheduling power saving mode;”
each/the AP on a common wake scheduling/state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state;”
in fact, while ML scheduling in the power save state, each AP is in a common wake state at the scheduling information/frame for transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode, each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link” in the instant application),
wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs (paragraph [0119] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: the SPs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more service periods (SPs);”
in fact, the scheduling information indicating SPs after the first scheduling information/frame for APs, e.g., according to the priority, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs” in the instant application),
in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state (paragraph [0119] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: in each SP, one AP is in an awake state, e.g., according to the priority in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs is in an awake state” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more of the following fields related to the SPs:
working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the one or more SPs, wherein the working states include awake state and doze state,
starting times of the one or more SPs, and
time durations of the one or more SPs (paragraph [0075] lines 1-4; Examiner’s Notes: the start time of the target wait time service period (TWT SP) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “starting times of the one or more SPs;”
in fact, the scheduling information indicating the start time of the TWT SP in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more of the following fields related to the SPs:
working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the one or more SPs, wherein the working states include awake state and doze state,
starting times of the one or more SPs, and
time durations of the one or more SPs” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the first scheduling information frame is associated with a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (paragraph [0092] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: first TBTT 251 illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT);”
in fact, the scheduling information/frame regards to the TBTT, e.g., first TBTT 251 illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first scheduling information frame is associated with a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT)” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein ends of the one or more SPs are aligned with TBTTs, respectively (paragraph [0092] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the SP, e.g., TWT SP 261, is negotiated/aligned with the first TBTT 251, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein ends of the one or more SPs are aligned with TBTTs, respectively” in the instant application),
time durations of the one or more SPs are determined based on an interval of the beacon frames (paragraph [0093] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the time duration of SP, e.g., TWT SP 261 is determined according to the interval of the beacon frames, e.g., between beacon 255 and the following beacon, as illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “time durations of the one or more SPs are determined based on an interval of the beacon frames” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in the awake state at one or more TBTTs after the first scheduling information frame (paragraph [0094] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: the AP is in awake state, during TWT SP 261, after the scheduling information/frame, e.g., broadcast TWT 256, as illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs is in the awake state at one or more TBTTs after the first scheduling information frame” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 6, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the AP MLD schedules one or more STAs for being in the awake mode during the SP when an affiliated AP which associated with the one or more STAs is in awake state, with negotiating target wake time (TWT) agreements (paragraph [0092] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: negotiating regards to the TWT in the prior art teaches the limitation of “with negotiating target wake time (TWT) agreements;”
in fact, the AP MLD scheduling STA1 244 in awake mode during the SP while the AP 242 negotiating the TWT in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the AP MLD schedules one or more STAs for being in the awake mode during the SP when an affiliated AP which associated with the one or more STAs is in awake state, with negotiating target wake time (TWT) agreements” in the instant application), and
the first scheduling information frame is independent from a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (paragraph [0058] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the first scheduling information/frame is independent from a TBTT, e.g., the first TBTT 251, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the first scheduling information frame is independent from a target beacon transmission time (TBTT)” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, further comprising a processor configured to control the AP MLD to enter the multi-link scheduling power saving mode (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0207] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: CPU 1814 depicted in FIG. 18 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a processor;”
in fact, the processor, e.g., CPU 1814, scheduling/controlling AP MLD to enter the power save state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “further comprising a processor configured to control the AP MLD to enter the multi-link scheduling power saving mode” in the instant application), and
schedule working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode (paragraph [0058] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: scheduling states, e.g., awake state, for APs in ML scheduling power save state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “schedule working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode” in the instant application),
wherein the working states include the awake state and a doze state (paragraph [0094] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: scheduling for awake and doze states in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the working states include the awake state and a doze state” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the processor is further configured to control the AP MLD to
enter the multi-link scheduling power saving mode based on a traffic load of the AP MLD, a transmission delay of the AP MLD, and/or a type of a non-AP STA associated with the AP MLD (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0074] lines 1-3; Examiner’s Notes: the buffered data/traffic regards to the AP-MLD in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a traffic load of the AP MLD;”
in fact, entering the ML scheduling power save state according to the buffered data/traffic of the AP-MLD in the prior art teaches the limitation of “enter the multi-link scheduling power saving mode based on a traffic load of the AP MLD, a transmission delay of the AP MLD, and/or a type of a non-AP STA associated with the AP MLD” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the plurality of affiliated APs enter the awake state in an order during a plurality of successive SPs in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0074] lines 1-3; Examiner’s Notes: APs entering the awake state according to the order of the buffered data/traffic of APs during the SPs in the ML scheduling power save state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the plurality of affiliated APs enter the awake state in an order during a plurality of successive SPs in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein the order is determined based on one or more of the following items: a type of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP, a quantity of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP, a traffic load of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0074] lines 1-3; Examiner’s Notes: the buffered data/traffic regards to the STAs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a traffic load of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP;”
in fact, determining the order based on the buffered data/traffic regards to the STAs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the order is determined based on one or more of the following items: a type of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP, a quantity of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP, a traffic load of one or more STAs associated with each affiliated AP” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 16, Chitrakar et al. further teach the AP MLD, wherein links of the plurality of affiliated APs are in the non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) operation mode (paragraph [0179] lines 1-9; Examiner’s Notes: the wireless links of APs in non-simultaneous transmit and receive communications in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein links of the plurality of affiliated APs are in the non-simultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) operation mode” in the instant application),
Regarding claim 17, Chitrakar et al. teach the method for wireless communication at an access point multi-link device (AP MLD) (paragraph [0182] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: AP-MLD 1202 depicted in FIG. 12 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “access point multi-link device (AP MLD)” in the instant application),
wherein the AP MLD includes a plurality of affiliated access points (APs) (paragraph [0182] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: APs, e.g., AP1 1204 and AP2 1206 depicted in FIG. 12 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of affiliated access points (APs)” in the instant application), and the method comprises:
in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode of the AP MLD, each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs entering an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link (paragraphs [0058] lines 1-8 & [0075] lines 1-4; Examiner’s Notes: while ML scheduling in the power save state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a multi-link scheduling power saving mode;”
each/the AP entering a common wake state in the prior art teaches the limitation of “each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs entering an awake state;”
in fact, while ML scheduling in the power save state, each AP enters a common wake state at the scheduling information/frame for transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in a multi-link scheduling power saving mode of the AP MLD, each affiliated AP of the plurality of affiliated APs entering an awake state at a first scheduling information frame to transmit scheduling information on its link” in the instant application),
wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs (paragraph [0119] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: the SPs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more service periods (SPs);”
in fact, the scheduling information indicating SPs after the first scheduling information/frame for APs, e.g., according to the priority, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more service periods (SPs) after the first scheduling information frame for the plurality of affiliated APs” in the instant application),
in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs entering the awake state (paragraph [0119] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: in each SP, one AP enters the awake state, e.g., according to the priority in the prior art teaches the limitation of “in each SP of the one or more SPs, only one affiliated AP in the plurality of affiliated APs entering the awake state” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 18, Chitrakar et al. further teach the method, wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more of the following items related to the SPs:
working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the one or more SPs, wherein the working states include awake state and doze state,
starting times of the one or more SPs, and
time durations of the one or more SPs (paragraph [0075] lines 1-4; Examiner’s Notes: the start time of the target wait time service period (TWT SP) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “starting times of the one or more SPs;”
in fact, the scheduling information indicating the start time of the TWT SP in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the scheduling information indicates one or more of the following items related to the SPs:
working states of the plurality of affiliated APs in the one or more SPs, wherein the working states include awake state and doze state,
starting times of the one or more SPs, and
time durations of the one or more SPs” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 19, Chitrakar et al. further teach the method, wherein the first scheduling information frame is associated with a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (paragraph [0092] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: first TBTT 251 illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT);”
in fact, the scheduling information/frame regards to the TBTT, e.g., first TBTT 251 illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first scheduling information frame is associated with a first target beacon transmission time (TBTT)” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Chitrakar et al. further teach the method, wherein ends of the one or more SPs are aligned with TBTTs, respectively (paragraph [0092] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the SP, e.g., TWT SP 261, is negotiated/aligned with the first TBTT 251, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein ends of the one or more SPs are aligned with TBTTs, respectively” in the instant application),
time durations of the one or more SPs are determined based on an interval of the beacon frames (paragraph [0093] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the time duration of SP, e.g., TWT SP 261 is determined according to the interval of the beacon frames, e.g., between beacon 255 and the following beacon, as illustrated in FIG. 2B in the prior art teaches the limitation of “time durations of the one or more SPs are determined based on an interval of the beacon frames” in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2024/0032089) in view of Shafin et al. (US 2024/0373462).
Regarding claim 12, Chitrakar et al. teach the AP MLD without explicitly teaching implementing a number of the SPs corresponding to the scheduling information.
Shafin et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the scheduling information further indicates: a number of the SPs corresponding to the scheduling information (paragraph [0022] lines 1-3; Examiner’s Notes: the number of beacon intervals/service periods corresponding to the scheduling information/agreement in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a number of the SPs corresponding to the scheduling information;”
in fact, indicating the number of beacon intervals/service periods corresponding to the scheduling information/agreement in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the scheduling information further indicates: a number of the SPs corresponding to the scheduling information” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Shafin et al. in the system of Chitrakar et al.
The motivation for implementing a number of the SPs corresponding to the scheduling information, is to enhance the mechanism of a first AP to establish TWT-based multi-AP coordination with a second AP in multi-AP coordination set for a TWT schedule identified by a first TWT parameter set, wherein when the first AP intends to make any changes to parameters to the TWT schedule, the first AP notifies the second AP about the impending changes before the first AP makes the changes to the TWT parameters.
Regarding claim 15, Chitrakar et al. teach the AP MLD without explicitly teaching implementing the one or more STAs are in the active mode.
Shafin et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein when a third affiliated AP is associated with one or more STAs and the one or more STAs are in the active mode (paragraphs [0073] lines 1-7 & [0126] lines 1-31; Examiner’s Notes: the AP communicating with the STA in the power management mode, e.g., in active mode in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein when a third affiliated AP is associated with one or more STAs and the one or more STAs are in the active mode” in the instant application),
the scheduling information includes a quiet element, a schedule element or TID-To-Link Mapping element for the third affiliated AP (paragraph [0126] lines 1-31; Examiner’s Notes: the TWT parameter in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a schedule element;”
in fact, the scheduling information indicating the TWT parameter in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the scheduling information includes a quiet element, a schedule element or TID-To-Link Mapping element for the third affiliated AP” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Shafin et al. in the system of Chitrakar et al.
The motivation for implementing the one or more STAs are in the active mode, is to enhance the mechanism of a first AP to establish TWT-based multi-AP coordination with a second AP in multi-AP coordination set for a TWT schedule identified by a first TWT parameter set, wherein when the first AP intends to make any changes to parameters to the TWT schedule, the first AP notifies the second AP about the impending changes before the first AP makes the changes to the TWT parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode, when a first affiliated AP is in the doze state, and the first affiliated AP is associated with one or more non-MLD STAs that require low latency transmission service or associated with one or more legacy STAs in the awake state, the first affiliated AP switches to the lower capability mode in which a transmission capability of an AP is reduced, and the one or more legacy STAs do not support the low latency traffic transmission” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
15. Claims 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode, the processor is further configured to switch the plurality of affiliated APs to the awake state, in response to the request frame, when the affiliated AP in the awake state during an SP receives a request frame from an STAtion (STA) MLD” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein in the multi-link scheduling power saving mode, the processor is further configured to schedule a second affiliated AP to enter the awake state when one or more non-MLD STAs associated with the second affiliated AP enter the awake state” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights