DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on June 16, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-13 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/764,055 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0294583).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al discloses a non-access point multi-link device (non-AP MLD) (fig. 1 [120] and paragraph 50 discloses non-AP MLD), comprising: a memory 610 (figure 6), configured to store a computer program; and a processor 605 (figure 6), configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory; wherein the processor is configured to perform: initiating a first switch procedure of a first link (see at least paragraph 50 discloses multi-link operations in EML mode), in a case where a transmission opportunity (TXOP) is initiated or successfully obtained by a first affiliated station (STA) of the non-AP MLD on the first link of enhanced multi-link single radio (EMLSR) links (see at least paragraph 50 discloses multi-link operations in EML mode), the TXOP being used for the first affiliated STA of the non-AP MLD to transmit an uplink physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (see at least paragraph 59 discloses transmitting PPDU); wherein a first switch refers to that the non-AP MLD operating in an EMLSR mode switches from a first operation mode to a second operation mode (see at least paragraph 53 discloses switches between mode), the first operation mode refers to performing a listening operation on multiple links of the EMLSR links (see at least paragraph 53 discloses listening mode), and the second operation mode refers to performing a frame exchange operation on one of the EMLSR links and the frame exchange operation has a frame exchange capability of using multiple spatial streams (see at least paragraph 53 discloses frame exchange with multiple spatial streams).
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al discloses a transceiver, configured to perform sending an initial PPDU on the first link; wherein the processor is further configured to perform: determining that a time point when the TXOP is successfully obtained is: a time point when a response frame corresponding to the initial PPDU is received, in response that the initial PPDU requires an immediate response; and determining that a time point when the TXOP is successfully obtained is: a time point when transmission of the initial PPDU is started or a time point when transmission of the initial PPDU is completed, in response that the initial PPDU does not require an immediate response (see at least paragraphs 58-59 and 64 discloses received PPDU does not require immediate response).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al discloses the transceiver is further configured to perform: sending a specific frame sequence during the first switch, wherein the specific frame sequence is used to occupy a channel on the first link (see at least paragraphs 52 and 54 discloses initiates frame sequence).
Regarding claim 4, Lu et al discloses sending the specific frame sequence during the first switch comprises: during the first switch, sending a specific frame from a first time point; and continuing sending the specific frame in a case where a first condition is met, or stopping sending the specific frame in a case where a second condition is met (see at least paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 5, Lu et al discloses the first time point is determined based on a time point when the first affiliated STA of the non-AP MLD initiates or successfully obtains the TXOP.
Regarding claim 6, Lu et al discloses the transceiver is further configured to perform: sending an uplink PPDU to a first affiliated AP of an AP MLD on the first link after sending the specific frame (see at least paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et al discloses the specific frame sequence comprises a null data packet announcement (NDPA) frame and at least one NDP frame; the specific frame sequence comprises at least one clear to send (CTS) to self frame; the specific frame sequence comprises at least one quality of service null (QoS-null) frame; or the specific frame sequence comprises at least one data frame (see at least paragraph 50).
Regarding claim 13, Lu et al discloses a frame exchange operation in the second operation mode comprises a frame exchange operation of one or more spatial streams.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries 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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0294583) in view of Kim et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0163948).
Regarding claim 8, Lu et al specifically does not disclose performing an error recovery operation and/or a second switch, in response to determining that transmission of a second PPDU within the TXOP fails, the second PPDU being a non-initial PPDU; wherein the second switch refers to that the non-AP MLD operating in the EMLSR mode switches from the second operation mode to the first operation mode. However, Kim et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches performing an error recovery operation and/or a second switch, in response to determining that transmission of a second PPDU within the TXOP fails, the second PPDU being a non-initial PPDU; wherein the second switch refers to that the non-AP MLD operating in the EMLSR mode switches from the second operation mode to the first operation mode (see at least paragraphs 215 and 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lu et al with Kim et al as they both use MLD that can perform frame exchange and MLD operating in the EMLSR mode; which supports transmission/reception for only one link at a time.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al discloses performing the error recovery operation and/or the second switch, in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, comprises: in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing PIFS recovery and/or backoff, in a case where the non-AP MLD is allowed to perform the second switch only after a TXOP ends; and performing the second switch after the TXOP ends (see at least paragraphs 215 and 231). Same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al discloses in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing the error recovery operation and/or the second switch comprises: in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing the error recovery operation and/or the second switch in a specific manner, in a case where the non-AP MLD is allowed to perform the second switch within a TXOP (see at least paragraphs 215 and 231). Same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al discloses in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing the error recovery operation and/or the second switch in the specific manner comprises: in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing the error recovery operation; wherein if the error recovery operation is an error recovery operation of performing backoff when a TXNAV timer is expired, the second switch is performed when the TXNAV timer expires; if the error recovery operation is an error recovery operation of performing PIFS recovery, after waiting for aPIFStime after a first timeout period expires, the second PPDU is retransmitted, and the second switch is not performed; if the error recovery operation is an error recovery operation of performing backoff, after the first timeout period expires, a backoff procedure is performed, and the second switch is not performed; wherein the first timeout period starts at a time point when the non-AP MLD completes the transmission of the second PPDU (see at least paragraphs 215 and 231). Same motivation as claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al discloses in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails, performing the error recovery operation and/or the second switch in the specific manner comprises: performing the second switch in response to determining that the transmission of the second PPDU within the TXOP fails; and performing an error recovery operation of performing backoff on a plurality of EMLSR links after completing the second switch (see at least paragraphs 215 and 231). Same motivation as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
In response to Election/Restriction, an election was made to examine the invention of first species, claims 1-13. Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Chu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0029736) directed toward operation of EMLSR and EMLMR.
Kwon et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0104261) directed toward enhanced multi-link operation of frame exchange restriction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642