DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the communication filed on 11/18/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination, claims 1, 10, and 19 are recited in independent form. The present Application claims priority to provisional application 62/033,486 with filing date of 06/02/2020 and is a Continuation of 17/324,518 (now US Pat. No. 11,737,018) with filing date of 05/19/2021 and 18/213,674 (now US Pat. No. 12,192,894) with a filing date of 06/23/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is only limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication US-20210266891 to Chu et al (hereinafter d1) in view of United States Patent Application Publication US-20220132423 Fang et al (hereinafter d2).
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitations “A multi-link device (MLD), comprising: a first station (STA) associated with a first link of a wireless network and configured to communicate with a second MLD over the first link; a second STA associated with a second link of the wireless network; a third STA associated with a third link of the wireless network; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the first, second, and third STAs and configured to:” d1 discloses a STA MLD (see d1 Fig. 1 element 104, para. 0049) which comprises STA1 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-1) and STA2 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-2) with associated links) as well as processors (see d1 para. 0013, 0049);
as to the limitations “transmit, using the first STA on the first link, a message to the second MLD indicating that the second STA and the third STA are exiting a first mode; and transition the second STA and the third STA from the first mode to a second mode, wherein the second STA and the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” d1 discloses controlling operations of the STAs (see d1 para. 0049) as well as power saving modes for STAs (i.e. hibernation mode) (see d1 para. 0049); however, d1 does not appear to explicitly disclose “a third STA associated with a third link of the wireless network” “third STAs”, “the third STA are exiting a first mode” “transition…third STA from the first mode to a second mode, wherein…the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, teaches methods, devices, systems and computer readable medium embodiments directed to wireless communication (see d2 para. 0002) including a system in which three devices are involved (i.e. third STA) (see d2 Fig. 1 elements 112, 120, 110, 122 as described in the para. 0065-0072; Fig. 2C paras. 0073-01112) which sets forth transitions of the respective STAs from a second mode to the first mode (see d2 Figs. 2 para. 0073-0101), wherein the first mode causes the respective STAs use less power than the second mode modes PSO and NO (see d2 para. 0101-0103); transitioning respective STAs from the first mode to the second mode (see d2 Fig. 3 para. 0114-0118); and transmitting a frame, using the second STA, to the second MLD indicating that the second STA has exited the first mode (see d2 Figs. 4 para. 0119-0137). The Examiner asserts that d2 also appears to meet limitations addressed above by d1, and when considered together with d1, in combination, meets all the limitations of the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 as there is present ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least: reduce the access delay, improve transmission reliability and increase transmission throughput (see d2 para. 0006). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of improved system performance, with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 10, as to the limitations “A method, comprising:” d1 discloses a STA MLD (see d1 Fig. 1 element 104, para. 0049) which comprises STA1 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-1) and STA2 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-2) with associated links) as well as processors (see d1 para. 0013, 0049);
as to the limitations “transmitting, using a first station (STA) of a multi-link device (MLD) on a first link of a wireless network, a message to a second MLD indicating that a second STA and a third STA of the MLD are exiting a first mode, wherein the second STA is associated with a second link of the wireless network and the third STA is associated with a third link of the wireless network; and transitioning the second STA and the third STA from the first mode to a second mode, wherein the second STA and the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” d1 discloses controlling operations of the STAs (see d1 para. 0049) as well as power saving modes for STAs (i.e. hibernation mode) (see d1 para. 0049); however, d1 does not appear to explicitly disclose “a third STA associated with a third link of the wireless network” “third STAs”, “the third STA are exiting a first mode” “transition…third STA from the first mode to a second mode, wherein…the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, teaches methods, devices, systems and computer readable medium embodiments directed to wireless communication (see d2 para. 0002) including a system in which three devices are involved (i.e. third STA) (see d2 Fig. 1 elements 112, 120, 110, 122 as described in the para. 0065-0072; Fig. 2C paras. 0073-01112) which sets forth transitions of the respective STAs from a second mode to the first mode (see d2 Figs. 2 para. 0073-0101), wherein the first mode causes the respective STAs use less power than the second mode modes PSO and NO (see d2 para. 0101-0103); transitioning respective STAs from the first mode to the second mode (see d2 Fig. 3 para. 0114-0118); and transmitting a frame, using the second STA, to the second MLD indicating that the second STA has exited the first mode (see d2 Figs. 4 para. 0119-0137). The Examiner asserts that d2 also appears to meet limitations addressed above by d1, and when considered together with d1, in combination, meets all the limitations of the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 as there is present ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least: reduce the access delay, improve transmission reliability and increase transmission throughput (see d2 para. 0006). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of improved system performance, with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Regarding claim 19, as to the limitations “A multi-link device (MLD), comprising: a first access point (AP) associated with a first link of a wireless network and configured to communicate with a second MLD over the first link; a second AP associated with a second link of the wireless network; a third AP associated with a third link of the wireless network; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the first, second, and third APs and configured to:” d1 discloses a STA MLD (see d1 Fig. 1 element 104, para. 0049) which comprises STA1 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-1) and STA2 (see d1 Fig. 1 element 110-2) with associated links) as well as processors (see d1 para. 0013, 0049);
as to the limitations “receive, using the first AP on the first link, a message from a first station (STA) of a second MLD indicating that a second STA and a third STA of the second MLD are exiting a first mode; and cause the second AP and the third AP to refrain from buffering downlink (DL) data for the second STA and the third STA of the second MLD that are transitioned to a second mode, wherein the second STA and the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” d1 discloses controlling operations of the STAs (see d1 para. 0049) as well as power saving modes for STAs (i.e. hibernation mode) (see d1 para. 0049); however, d1 does not appear to explicitly disclose “a third STA associated with a third link of the wireless network” “third STAs”, “the third STA are exiting a first mode” “transition…third STA from the first mode to a second mode, wherein…the third STA use less power in the second mode than in the first mode” although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, teaches methods, devices, systems and computer readable medium embodiments directed to wireless communication (see d2 para. 0002) including a system in which three devices are involved (i.e. third STA) (see d2 Fig. 1 elements 112, 120, 110, 122 as described in the para. 0065-0072; Fig. 2C paras. 0073-01112) which sets forth transitions of the respective STAs from a second mode to the first mode (see d2 Figs. 2 para. 0073-0101), wherein the first mode causes the respective STAs use less power than the second mode modes PSO and NO (see d2 para. 0101-0103); transitioning respective STAs from the first mode to the second mode (see d2 Fig. 3 para. 0114-0118); and transmitting a frame, using the second STA, to the second MLD indicating that the second STA has exited the first mode (see d2 Figs. 4 para. 0119-0137). The Examiner asserts that d2 also appears to meet limitations addressed above by d1, and when considered together with d1, in combination, meets all the limitations of the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the teaching of d1 and d2 as there is present ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including at least: reduce the access delay, improve transmission reliability and increase transmission throughput (see d2 para. 0006). The combination would also yield reasonable expectation of success as the techniques are applied in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) and employ similar techniques. D2 is related to d1 in a similar field of endeavor (wireless communication) and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to apply the known techniques of d2 to the implementation of d1 to yield the predictable result of improved system performance, with no undue experimentation and without altering the function thereof, wherein both techniques were known and used as of the effective filing date. It is also noted that many of the noted sections of d2 can equally be applied to the other limitations of the claims rejected under this section when d1 in view of d2 is considered as a whole and not individually.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, provided rejections with respect to double patenting and 103 are addressed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights