DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 6/22/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s response filed has established priority for the instant application as being 1/11/2024, as the appendix, which was previously overlooked, does discuss the use of Wi-Fi 7’s TID to Link Mapping functionality, where the instant claims appear to provide for this functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103 filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered, but are deemed not persuasive.
Applicant argues the subject matter, such as in claim 1, of mapping the first set of QoS parameters to a first link(s) and the second set of QoS parameters to a second link(s), with language being added to claim 1 to provide communicating the second traffic stream “in an active mode,” apparently to emphasize the subject matter that Applicant is attempting to capture.
As an initial matter, in general, “first” and “second” do not denote different elements unless explicitly or implicitly required by the instant claim. For claim 1, the “first” and “second,” in each case, do not appear to be differentiating, and each recitation could refer to the same element in prior art. This interpretation will not be focused on below, but with this being a valid interpretation, the instant claim should be amended to clearly reflect that each item is different. For example, “a second set of QoS parameters different from the first set” and “different one or more second links of the plurality of links.”
Meanwhile, assuming that “first” and “second” are distinct from each other, the instant claim begins by “identifying” a “first traffic stream…and a second traffic stream,” with the QoS parameters being claimed using the term “associated with,” meaning that the identifying step, in itself, never needs to have any knowledge of the different QoS parameters. As long as the traffic streams are associated with some QoS parameters, which would occur for at least for any QoS aware networking system, the identifying step is satisfied.
The claim proceeds to map the first set of QoS parameters to one or more first links and the second set of QoS parameters to one or more second links, with no disclosure of how such mapping occurs, but this step does implicitly require some knowledge of the QoS parameters. Applicant apparently intends to recite the functionality of Wi-Fi 7 (which was officially launched January 8, 2024 with early device rollouts occurring in 2023) of TID to Link Mapping, but the instant claim is not limited to this. Instead, the mapping, itself, merely needs to have at least two links, where different QoS parameters would be mapped to different links. This is satisfied by having some QoS parameters specified for a first link and a second link that handles other QoS parameters, as QoS parameters that are received would then be determined, then mapped to the appropriate links (where a QoS parameter that satisfies the requirements of the first link would be mapped to the first link, QoS parameters that do not satisfy the requirements of the first link would be mapped to the second link).
For the communicating steps, it appears that Applicant is relying on “in an active mode” to differentiate between the communicating “during a service period (SP) of a target wake time (TWT) schedule” over the first link. However, this does not actually appear to provide what constitutes an active mode, or how communicating would not be occurring during some active mode. In reviewing the instant specification, the disclosure provides that the link, itself, is maintained in an active mode, as TWT scheduling is not applied (See specification: Page 34, lines 14-15). However, the mere addition of “in an active mode” does not actually provide what constitutes an active mode, that TWT scheduling is not used, or that the link, itself, is maintained in an active mode. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, any communication would be occurring in some “active mode,” as the link would be active during the communication, even if TWT scheduling is utilized (where the “active mode” for the communicating would be during the service periods).
Though the amendments and arguments have not overcome the applied rejection, the following reference has been found based on a search responsive to Applicant’s arguments (where a different publishing of the same document was provided by Applicant on 6/22/2026). Lopez-Raventos et al. in “Multi-link operation in IEEE 802.11be WLANS,” published 1/19/2022, utilizes the TID to link mapping of Wi-Fi 7 (Lopez-Raventos: Page 1, Column 2, Lines 6-9). On page 4, Columns 2 to Page 5, Column 1 “2) Target Wake Time”, the use of TWT with the links is discussed, where “To efficiently address a TWT operation under the MLO framework, TGbe suggests to perform TWT agreements (i.e., negotiation phase) for the different enabled links…” where “the links may have different TWT parameters such as wake up time, wake interval or minimum wake duration.” While this does not specifically provide the notion of keeping a link in an active mode, the ability to separately negotiate separate parameters, such as “minimum wake duration” would provide at least a platform to modify the reference to have the minimum wake duration essentially being infinite (thus keeping the link awake). While this reference is not relied upon at this time, Applicant should be at least aware of it for any subsequent amendments, as it may be applied in a later Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0081256 (Gupta) in view of US 2025/0159605 (Shafin).
With regard to claim 1, Gupta discloses a method comprising:
identifying, by a first multi-link device (MLD), a first traffic stream associated with a first set of quality of service (QoS) parameters and a second traffic stream associated with a second set of QoS parameters (Gupta: Figure 1A, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0014] and [0019]. Gupta provides a connection between a singular access point (102) and a device (104), where different traffic streams are mapped to different ones of the links according to QoS requirements, with transmissions being performed in accordance with the mapping.);
mapping, by the first MLD, the first set of QoS parameters to one or more first links of a plurality of links between the first MLD and a second MLD, and the second set of QoS parameters to one or more second links of the plurality of links (Gupta: Figure 1A, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0014] and [0019]);
communicating, by the first MLD, the first traffic stream over the one or more first links (Gupta: Figure 1A, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0014] and [0019]); and
communicating, by the first MLD, the second traffic stream over the one or more second links (Gupta: Figure 1A, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0014] and [0019]).
Gupta fails to disclose, but Shafin teaches that the communicating of the first traffic stream is during a service period (SP) of a target wake time (TWT) schedule (Shafin: Abstract and Paragraph [0007]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the transmission during a service period of a target wake time schedule to improve Wi-Fi efficiency by transmitting in accordance with the schedule, such as by reducing contention, minimizing power consumption (by not requiring channel monitoring and avoiding collisions), etc.
With regard to claim 2, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches that the first set of QoS parameters include a bandwidth different from a bandwidth included in the second set of QoS parameters; or the first set of QoS parameters include periodicity different from periodicity included in the second set of QoS parameters (Gupta: Abstract and Paragraph [0022]. The QoS requirements, that are different for the different traffic streams being mapped to the different channels may include bandwidth.).
With regard to claim 3, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches wherein: the first MLD comprises one of an access point (AP) MLD and a non-AP MLD, and the second MLD comprises the other of the AP and the non-AP MLD; or each of the first MLD and the second MLD comprises a non-AP MLD (Gupta: Figure 1A. The devices may include an AP and a non-AP MLD.).
With regard to claim 5, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches wherein: the first set of QoS parameters are associated with one or more first traffic identifier (TIDs), and the second set of QoS parameters are associated with one or more second TIDs (Gupta: Abstract and Paragraph [0014]).
With regard to claim 6, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches wherein mapping the first set of QoS parameters to the one or more first links comprises: associating the first set of QoS parameters with a TWT schedule; and performing a TID to link mapping (TTLM) procedure to map the one or more first TIDs to the one or more first links (Gupta: Abstract and Paragraph [0014] and Shafin: Abstract and Paragraph [0007] and [0072] to [0073]. The TIDs in Gupta are mapped to different QoS parameters, where TIDs are associated with different schedules in Shafin.).
With regard to claim 7, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches wherein mapping the first set of QoS parameters to the one or more first links comprises: performing a stream classification service (SCS) procedure to associate the first set of QoS parameters with the one or more first TIDs (Gupta: Paragraph [0036]).
With regard to claim 8, Gupta in view of Shafin teaches, wherein: the one or more first TIDs are a single TID, and the one or more second TIDs include two or more TIDs (Gupta: Paragraph [0032]. Multiple identifiers can be associated with different QoS requirements. It is also noted that the instant claim does not actually require that the first set of QoS parameters are different from the second set of QoS parameters (as well as any other sets of QoS parameters), and are the “only” QoS parameters mapped to the single TID. For clarity, it is recommended that Applicant provide more specific claim language to ensure that the first set of QoS parameters are different from any other set of QoS parameters and are only associated with the first TIDs and that the second set of QoS parameters are similarly different from any other set of QoS parameters and are only associated with the second TIDs.).
With regard to claim 9, Gupta teaches maintaining the one or more second links in an active mode (Gupta: Figure 1A. At least during transmission, and active (transmitting) mode would be maintained.).
With regard to claim 10, Gupta fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein identifying the second traffic stream comprises: determining whether the second traffic stream has an interval smaller than a threshold; and in response to the second traffic stream having an interval smaller than the threshold, identifying the second traffic stream associated with the second set of QoS parameters (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that associating traffic to a set of QoS parameters based on communication interval requirements (“interval,” as claimed, is broad enough to cover many different types of requirements/characteristics, such as having a low interval between transmissions (e.g. video, which would provide a constant stream of packets with a low interval)) or allowing a low interval between transmission and receipt (e.g. maximum latency or delay requirements) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize some form of interval, with traffic having an interval smaller than some threshold would be associated with, for example, the second set of QoS parameters to allow typical types of QoS requirements to be utilized for the mapping of the traffic to different links. As a note, the instant claim (and claim 1, from which claim 10 depends) provides no actual difference between the first and second QoS parameter and the first set of links and the second set of links, where a requirement on the first set of links does not mean that the second set of links does not have the same requirement.
With regard to claims 11-13 and 15-20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-3 and 5-10, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Shafin, and further in view of US 2025/0274164 (Naik).
With regard to claim 4, Gupta teaches wherein: the one or more first links are a single link of the plurality of links (Gupta: Figure 1A). Gupta fails to teach expressly, but Naik teaches that the one or more second links include two or more links of the plurality of links (Naik: Paragraph [0087]. Naik presents that frames of a single traffic flow (e.g. traffic associated with a single TID, such as that of Gupta), may be transmitted concurrently across multiple communication links.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have traffic of Gupta having a same TID able to be communicated across multiple links to provide improved service for such traffic.
With regard to claim 14, the instant claim is similar to claim 4, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights