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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, filed on March 13, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 20 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 2, 8, 10, 12, and 20 have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant's arguments regarding rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. § 103 rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 1, as amended, applicant argues claim 1 is in condition for allowance, because applied references Xiao ‘871 (US 11,329,871, “Xiao ‘871”) and Guo ‘425 (US 2024/0155425, “Guo ‘425”) do not disclose “generating a management frame, the management frame comprising a per-station profile of an access point (AP) affiliated with a AP multilink device (MLD) having a non-transmitted basic service set identifier (BSSID) AP, the per-station profile carried in two or more elements, one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile and the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (See Remarks, page 6, para 5, page 8, para 2).
First, applicant argues that Guo ‘425 discloses a per-STA profile that is fragmented into subelements inside a multilink element, rather than disclosing fragment elements in a payload of a profile element outside multiple-BSSID element (See Remarks, page 7, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fragment elements in a payload of a profile element outside multiple-BSSID element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”) and “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”). Furthermore, examiner notes that Xiao ‘871 discloses “the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330).
Second, applicant argues that the link ID in Guo ‘425 identifies a link of the MLD and not a fragment identifier which identifies a fragment of a profile (See Remarks, page 7, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that, as seen in Fig. 6 of Guo ‘425, a per-STA profile includes a subelement ID. Further, examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”) and “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”).
Third, applicant argues that Xiao ‘871 discloses mapping inside multiple BSSID element BSS profiles of a nonTX VAP that can be inherited from a Tx VAP, rather than disclosing a "per-station profile carried in two or more elements ... outside of the multiple BSSID element” (See Remarks, page 7, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”). Further, examiner notes that Xiao ‘871 discloses “the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330).
Fourth, applicant argues that Xiao ‘871 discloses elements outside a multiple BSSID element, rather than disclosing elements that carry per-station profile or fragments and placing per-STA or per-BSSID profile information outside the MBSSID (See Remarks, page 7, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”). Further, examiner notes that Xiao ‘871 discloses elements 320 that are not in multiple BSSID elements 330, as seen in FIG. 3 of Xiao ‘871 (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38).
Fifth, applicant argues that neither Xiao ‘871 nor Guo ‘425 discloses two or more top-level elements, each having element ID, length, and information fields, that carry respective fragments of a per-station profile, where the elements reside in a payload of an element outside any Multiple BSSID element (See Remarks, page 7, para 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two or more top-level elements, each having element ID, length, and information fields, that carry respective fragments of a per-station profile, where the elements reside in a payload of an element outside any Multiple BSSID element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”) and “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”). Furthermore, examiner notes that Xiao ‘871 discloses “the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330).
Sixth, applicant argues that “element” of claim 1 is, according to IEEE 802.11, a top level element rather than a nested subelement, and that “fragment element” defined in applicant’s specification (Specification, FIGS. 2-4, para 30-34) is also not a nested subelement (See Remarks, page 7, para 2, page 8, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that FIG. 4 and para 33-34 of the specification disclose a per-station profile 402 that consists of three fragments that include a primary per-station profile element 400 and two other fragment per-station elements 410 and 412, where each per-station profile element includes its own ID field, length field, and per-STA profile field. Further, examiner notes that FIG. 6 of Guo ‘425 discloses, in the second row of the disclosed block diagram, formats of per-STA profiles, where a per-STA profile includes a subelement ID, length, and data field of the per-STA profile. Furthermore, examiner notes that, in the application of Guo ‘425 to reject “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”, examiner maps “subelements” of Guo ‘425 to “elements” of claim 1, maps “a subelement ID” to “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”, and maps “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” to “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile.” Moreover, examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”) and “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”), and that Xiao ‘871 discloses “the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330).
Seventh, applicant argues that, according to IEEE 802.11, the fragment ID is a field inside the information field of a stand-alone element, and that, according to IEEE 802.11 and also the applicant’s specification, “fragment element” is not a “subelement,” which is the reason why Guo ‘425‘s per-STA profile subelements inside an MLE cannot satisfy the claim requirement of two or more elements carrying respective fragments outside the multiple BSSID element (See Remarks, page 8, para 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that FIG. 4 and para 33-34 of the specification disclose a per-station profile 402 that consists of three fragments that include a primary per-station profile element 400 and two other fragment per-station elements 410 and 412, where each per-station profile element includes its own ID field, length field, and per-STA profile field (Specification, FIG. 4, para 33-34). Further, examiner notes that FIG. 6 of Guo ‘425 discloses, in the second row, formats of per-STA profiles, where a per-STA profile includes a subelement ID, length, and data field of the per-STA profile. Furthermore, examiner notes that, in the application of Guo ‘425 to reject “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”, examiner maps “subelements” of Guo ‘425 to “elements” of claim 1, maps “a subelement ID” to “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”, and maps “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” to “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile.” Moreover, examiner notes that Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile carried in two or more elements” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”) and “one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”), and that Xiao ‘871 discloses “the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element” (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330).
B. § 103 rejection of claim 11
Regarding claim 11, as amended, applicant argues the claims are allowable by virtue of reciting similar features as those discussed with respect to claim 1. Relevant limitations claimed in claim 1 are discussed above. Applicant does not present arguments regarding additional limitations claimed in claim 11.
C. § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 18
Regarding claims 8 and 18, applicant argues that Guo ‘425 discloses a subelement in a MLE that is a fragment of the profile, rather than disclosing a top-level element not in the MLE (See Remarks, page 7, para 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a top-level element not in the MLE) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, examiner notes that, as seen in FIG. 6, Guo ‘425 discloses multi-link elements 1 and 2, where multi-link element 1 includes per-STA profiles 1 through x, and where multi-link element 2 includes per-STA profiles x+1 through y. Thus, per-STA profile 1 is included in multi-link element 1 and not in multi-link element 2. Thus, Guo ‘425 discloses a per-station profile element not included in one of the two multi-link elements. Therefore, Guo ‘425 discloses “the per-station profile element not in a multilink element” (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118, 150-151, and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; the per-STA profile subelements are in multilink element 1 and no in multilink element 2).
D. § 103 rejection of claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20, applicant argues the claims are allowable by virtue of their dependencies from amended claims 1 and 11. Relevant limitations claimed in amended claims 1 and 11 are discussed above. Applicant does not present arguments regarding additional limitations claimed in dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests replacing “a a fragment” in claim 6 (line 2) with - - a fragment - -.
Examiner suggests replacing “the two or more elements include” in claim 18 (line 1) with - - the two or more elements include - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao ‘871 (US 11,329,871, “Xiao ‘871”), in view of Guo ‘425 (US 2024/0155425, “Guo ‘425”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Xiao ‘871 discloses a system (FIG. 1, col. 7:15-45; WLAN apparatus 150 operating multiple BSSs) comprising:
processing circuitry (FIG. 15, col. 35:48-53, col. 37:1-16; processor 1502 with functionality implemented in an integrated circuit) arranged to:
generate a management frame (FIG. 1, col. 5:24-51, col. 7:46-67, col. 8:1-19, col. 9:35-50; multiple BSSID management unit 156 in the WLAN apparatus 150 generates a management frame for multiple BSSIDs and transmits the management frame to stations (STAs) in the WLAN, via virtual access points (VAPs), where each VAP communicates with a corresponding STA via a wireless link),
the management frame comprising a per-station profile of an access point (AP) affiliated with a AP multilink device (MLD) having a non-transmitted basic service set identifier (BSSID) AP (FIGS. 1 and 2, col. 5:52-67, col. 6:1-4, col. 8:20-37, col. 10:7-67, col. 11:1-5; management frame for multiple BSSIDs includes NonTxBSSID profile elements 272, 274, and 276 for corresponding VAPs 152, 153, and 154, where each VAP communicates with a corresponding STA via a wireless link; WLAN apparatus includes VAPs 152, 153, and 154; thus, WLAN apparatus is an AP multilink device; therefore, management frame for multiple BSSIDs includes per-station profiles affiliated with an AP multilink device having NonTxBSSID VAPs 152, 153, and 154),
the two or more elements are not in a multiple BSSID element (FIG. 3, col: 12:18-67, col. 13:1-38; elements 320 are not in multiple BSSID elements 330); and
transmit the management frame to a station (FIG. 1, col. 5:24-51, col. 7:46-67, col. 8:1-19, col. 9:35-50; multiple BSSID management unit generates a management frame and transmits the management frame to the STAs in the WLAN),
wherein a non-AP of the station associates with the AP MLD based on the management frame (FIG. 1, col. 9:35-50; a station receives the management frame and communicates with its corresponding VAP; thus, the station, which is a non-AP, associates with the WLAN apparatus that includes the station’s corresponding VAP, based on the received management frame).
However, Xiao ‘871 does not specifically disclose the per-station profile carried in two or more elements, one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile. Further, although Xiao ‘871 discloses wherein a non-AP of the station associates with the AP MLD based on the management frame, Xiao ‘871 does not specifically disclose wherein a non-AP MLD of the station associates with the AP MLD.
Guo ‘425 teaches the per-station profile carried in two or more elements (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the per-STA profile is carried in multiple subelements; “subelements” of Guo ‘425 read on the recited “elements”),
one or more of the two or more elements comprising an element identifier which is a fragment identifier, a length, and an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile; as the per-STA profile for the link is fragmented into the multiple per-STA profile subelements, the multiple per-STA subelements are fragments of the per-STA profile; thus, a subelement ID is a fragment ID; “subelements” read on the “elements”; “a subelement ID” reads on “an element identifier which is a fragment identifier”; “a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-SA profile” reads on “an information field which carries a respective fragment of the per-station profile”), and
wherein a non-AP MLD of the station associates with the AP MLD (FIGS. 1-2, para 115-119; non-AP MLD STA device associates with an AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xiao ‘871’s system generating a management frame, to include Guo ‘425’s non-AP MLD STA device that associates with an AP MLD. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Guo ‘425 teaches wherein at least one of the two or more elements is a fragment element (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements, i.e., fragments) and
an element identifier field, a length field, and an information field of the fragment element indicates the fragment identifier, a length of one fragment of the per-station profile, and the one fragment respectively (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements, i.e., fragments, where each per-STA profile subelement includes a subelement ID, a length, and a data field which carries a respective subelement of the per-STA profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s per-STA profile for a link that is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claim 3, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Guo ‘425 teaches wherein respective fragments of the per-station profile are carried in the two or more elements when a length of the per-station profile is greater than a maximum length of the information field (para 8, 86, 165-167, Table 2; per-STA profile information is fragmented into per-STA profile subelements when a new and additional subelement is used to carry information that cannot be carried in a per-STA profile of a maximum length; the maximum length is configured by an information element; thus, per-STA profile information is fragmented into multiple subelements when the required per-STA profile length is greater than a maximum length, where the maximum length is configured by an information element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s per-STA profile information that is fragmented into per-STA profile subelements when a new subelement is used to carry information that cannot be carried in the per-STA profile. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xiao ‘871 teaches wherein the per-station profile defines capabilities, parameters, and operational data of the AP affiliated with the same AP MLD as the nontransmitted BSSID AP (FIGS. 1 and 2, col. 10:7-67, col. 11:1-5; NonTx VAP’s BSSID management frame includes capabilities, parameters, and operation information; the NonTx VAP is part of the WLAN apparatus that is an AP MLD).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xiao ‘871 teaches wherein the non-transmitted BSSID AP does not transmit a beacon frame (FIG. 1, col. 5:24-51; AP transmits management frames that are Probe response frames and not beacon frames).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Guo ‘425 teaches wherein a fragment of another per-station profile is further included in a subelement of a multilink element (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 150-151 and 167; as seen in FIG. 6, multiple per-station profiles are included in a portion of a multilink element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s multiple per-station profiles that are included in a portion of a multilink element. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 6 and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xiao ‘871 teaches wherein another management frame is an Action frame transmitted by the nontransmitted BSSID AP in response to a multilink probe request received by the nontransmitted BSSID AP (FIG. 1, col. 5:24-67, col. 6:1-4, col. 8:20-37; NonTx BSSID VAP transmits a Probe response frame, sent in response to a received Probe request).
Furthermore, Guo ‘425 teaches a multilink probe request that carries the multilink element (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 123 and 150-151; an association request frame carries a multilink element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s request frame that carries a multilink element. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 11, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Guo ‘425 teaches wherein the two or more elements includes a per-station profile element (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; thus, the multiple subelements include a per-station profile subelement), and
wherein generating the management frame comprises generating the management frame which comprises the per-station profile element (FIGS. 5 and 6, para 142-143; the generated management frame includes a multi-link element MLE that includes per-STA profile elements),
the per-station profile element comprises a fragment for only the AP of the AP MLD (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118 and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements, i.e., fragments; a STA communicates over a single link with only one AP of the AP MLD; thus, a per-STA profile subelement is a fragment for only one AP of the AP MLD),
the per-station profile element not in a multilink element (FIGS. 1-2 and 6, para 115-118, 150-151, and 167; per-STA profile for a link is fragmented into multiple subelements; the per-STA profile subelements are in multilink element 1 and no in multilink element 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s per-STA profile for a link that is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 8 and 18, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Xiao ‘871 teaches wherein the management frame is a probe response frame transmitted by a transmitted BSSID AP in response to a probe request received by the transmitted BSSID AP (FIG. 1, col. 5:24-67, col. 6:1-4, col. 8:20-37; Tx BSSID VAP transmits a Probe response frame, sent in response to a received Probe request).
Regarding claim 13, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 11, as outlined above.
Further, Guo ‘425 teaches wherein respective fragments of the per-station profile are carried in the two or more elements when the per-station profile of the per-station profile element is greater than a maximum length of the information field (para 8, 86, 165-167, Table 2; per-STA profile information is fragmented into per-STA profile subelements when a new subelement is used to carry information that cannot be carried in the per-STA profile; thus, per-STA profile information is fragmented when the required per-STA profile length is greater than a maximum, where the maximum length is configured by an information element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to further include Guo ‘425’s per-STA profile for a link that is fragmented into multiple per-STA profile subelements. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid radio frame transmission failure and improve communication efficiency (Guo ‘425, para 6).
7. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao ‘871, in view of Guo ‘425, and further in view of Guo ‘177 (US 2023/0072177, “Guo ‘177”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 8 and 18, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Xiao ‘871 in combination with Guo ‘425 does not specifically disclose wherein the per-station element further comprises an indication of the AP MLD.
Guo ‘177 teaches wherein the per-station profile element further comprises an indication of the AP MLD (para 157; AP multi-link device receives a probe request frame that carries an identifier; the AP MLD determines that the received identifier is the same as the identifier of the AP MLD; thus, the received identifier includes indication of the AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Xiao ‘871 and Guo ‘425, to include Guo ‘177’s AP multi-link device receives a probe request frame that carries an identifier. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain communication information of an AP in time (Guo ‘177, para 6).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://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 § 502.0.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights