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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
Abstract
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
in line 1, “the first occurrence of “AP MLD” should be spelled out.
in line 1, “the first occurrence of “TID” should be spelled out.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 18, line 9, “the first occurrence of “BSS” should be spelled out
In Claim 20, line 1, “the first occurrence of “AP MLD” should be spelled out
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dong (“Dong”, US 20260006536).
Regarding Claim 1, Dong teaches a wireless communication method, comprising: determining, by an access point multi-link device (AP MLD), traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping information via a first network model (par 86; par 110-113; The first network model is the mapping module.);
wherein the TID-to-link mapping information is used to indicate a link to which each TID of multiple TIDs is mapped (par 86; par 110-113; The first network model is the mapping module.).
Regarding Claim 2, Dong teaches the method according to claim 1.
Dong further teaches wherein the multiple TIDs comprise at least one of:
a TID corresponding to a traffic to be transmitted by at least one non-access point multi-link device (Non-AP MLD) associated with the AP MLD (par 8-9; par 114-116),
or a TID corresponding to a traffic to be transmitted by the AP MLD (par 86; par 110-113).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Xin et al (“Xin”, US 20230254897).
Regarding Claim 3, Dong teaches the method according to claim 1.
Dong does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a delay sensitive traffic, or the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a non-delay sensitive traffic.
Xin teaches wherein the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a delay sensitive traffic (par 13-14; par 93; par 97-98),
or the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a non-delay sensitive traffic (par 13-14; par 93; par 97-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dong with the differentiation of traffic of Xin because it allows for time sensitive data to be prioritized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 4-17, the closest prior art of record Dong (US 20260006536) in view of Xin et al (US 20230254897) in further view of Chu et al (US 10367614) and in even further view of Ho et al (US 11751090) does not teach a wireless communication method, comprising: determining, by an access point multi-link device (AP MLD), traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping information via a first network model; wherein the TID-to-link mapping information is used to indicate a link to which each TID of multiple TIDs is mapped; wherein the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a delay sensitive traffic, or the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a non-delay sensitive traffic; wherein in a case where the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to the delay sensitive traffic, determining, by the AP MLD, the TID-to-link mapping information via the first network model, comprises: inputting, by the AP MLD, a first dataset into the first network model, which outputs the TID- to-link mapping information; wherein the first dataset comprises at least one of: buffer status information corresponding to the delay sensitive traffic, channel load information of a master link, transmission delay bound information associated with a TID corresponding to the delay sensitive traffic, mean data rate information associated with a TID, multi-link parameter information corresponding to the AP MLD, basic service set (BSS) load information corresponding to the delay sensitive traffic, data frame transmission rate information corresponding to the delay sensitive traffic, or mean arrival delay corresponding to a TID corresponding to a last delay sensitive traffic.
Regarding Claims 18-19, the closest prior art of record Dong (US 20260006536) in view of Xin et al (US 20230254897) in further view of Chu et al (US 10367614) and in even further view of Ho et al (US 11751090) does not teach a wireless communication method, comprising: determining, by an access point multi-link device (AP MLD), traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping information via a first network model; wherein the TID-to-link mapping information is used to indicate a link to which each TID of multiple TIDs is mapped; wherein the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a delay sensitive traffic, or the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to a non-delay sensitive traffic; wherein in a case where the multiple TIDs are TIDs corresponding to the non-delay sensitive traffic, determining, by the AP MLD, the TID-to-link mapping information via the first network model, comprises: inputting, by the AP MLD, a second dataset into the first network model, which outputs the TID-to-link mapping information; wherein the second dataset comprises at least one of: buffer status information corresponding to the non-delay sensitive traffic, mean data rate information associated with a TID, multi-link parameter information corresponding to the AP MLD, BSS load information corresponding to the non-delay sensitive traffic, data frame transmission rate information corresponding to the non- delay sensitive traffic, or mean throughput corresponding to a TID corresponding to a last non- delay sensitive traffic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chu et al (US 10367614), Abstract - Aspects of the disclosure provide an apparatus for wireless communication. The apparatus includes a transceiver and a processing circuit. The transceiver is configured to transmit and receive wireless signals. The processing circuit is configured to configure a field within a data unit for buffer information report, determine a first scale factor for scaling a first value indicative of buffered traffic of a first category, and a second scale factor for scaling a second value indicative of buffered traffic of a category, configure the field to include the first scale factor with the first value and the second scale factor with the second value, and provide the data unit to the transceiver for transmitting to another apparatus that allocates resources for transmission between the two apparatuses.
Ho et al (US 11751090), Abstract - This disclosure provides systems, methods, and apparatuses, including computer programs encoded on computer-readable media, for reporting Quality of Service (QoS) feedback information. A method of wireless communication at an apparatus may include selecting, from a variable number of control fields, one or more control fields for inclusion in a frame, each control field comprising a control identifier field and a control information field. The control identifier field may include an indicator indicating a type of information for communication is QoS feedback information. The control information field may include one or more subfields containing the QoS feedback information. The method may further include generating the frame comprising the selected number of control fields, and outputting the frame for transmission.
Cariou et al (US 12250592), Abstract - Logic to generate an extremely high throughput (EHT) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) comprising a medium access control (MAC) management frame. the MAC management frame comprising a QoS management field. the QoS management field comprising at least one bit value to indicate quality of service (QoS) management capability associated with links associated with more than one frequency bands. Logic to cause the transmission of the EHT PPDU. And logic to receive and decode the EHT PPDU.
Ryu et al (US 10667281), Abstract - A method for a WLAN system including transmitting, by a first station (STA), a trigger frame triggering uplink multi-user (UL MU) transmission from a second STA, in which the trigger frame includes preference information related to an access category (AC) type for an aggregation frame to be generated by the second STA and limit information related to a maximum number of traffic identifiers (TIDs) for the aggregation frame. In response to the trigger frame, the first STA may receive a UL frame configured based on the aggregation frame and a Quality of Service (QoS) null frame which has an acknowledgement (ACK) policy field being set to no ACK. When the QoS null frame is aggregated, the preference information and the limit information may be disregarded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights