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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 18 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, new prior art of record Adachi et al. (US 2022/0110123), hereinafter Adachi, teaches: the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is assigned in accordance with a domain of the MLD: “Upon determining that there is no error in the MAC frame by the FCS, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each determines whether the MAC frame is addressed to its own terminal based on the RA field of the MAC header. When its MAC address of the wireless link is set in the PA field, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAC frame and determines whether it is necessary to transmit the response frame using the information of the MAC header . . . Whether the frame is from the same P33 is determined using an address field describing a BSS Identifier (hereinafter, referred to as a BSSID), which is a MAC address of the AP. In the MAC frame transmitted from the AP, the TA expresses the BSSID. When the RA field is a multicast address, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAE frame when the frame is from the same BSS and the multicast address includes its MAC address of the wireless link. The broadcast address and the multicast address are collectively referred to as a group address. When the group address is handled at the MLD, the MAC address of the AP MLD may be used instead of the BSSID” (Adachi ¶ 0081). In other words, the BSSID of the MLD, indicates the per link addresses, or the MAC address of the wireless links, are assigned in accordance with the BSS, or the domain, of the MLD.
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.
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 1, 5, 8-9, 16, 18, 21, 24-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 2021/0014776) hereinafter Patil in further view of, Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0049552) hereinafter Chitrakar, Adachi et al. (US 2022/0110123), hereinafter Adachi, and Kim et al. (US 2023/0199551), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Patil teaches: A multi-link device (MLD), comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the MLD to: “he first AP MLD may include at least one modem, at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one modem, and at least one memory communicatively coupled with the at least one processor. The at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor in conjunction with the at least one modem, causes the first AP MLD to perform operations” (Patil ¶ 0013), obtain or output a frame on a first communication link associated with a first device of the MLD: “when executed by the at least one processor in conjunction with the at least one modem, causes the AP MLD to perform operations. The operations may include generating a frame by a first AP of the AP MLD associated with a first communication link of the AP MLD” (Patil ¶ 0013), the frame configured to include one or more Link Identifiers (IDs) associated with the one or more communication links of the MLD: “the frame may also include one or more second ID fields, each field of the one or more second ID fields carrying at least one of a link identifier that identifies a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs or an MLD identifier that identifies the first AP MLD. Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0031).
Patil does not teach: the frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header carrying a plurality of addresses, each address of the plurality of addresses associated with one of a per-link address of the first communication link of the MLD or a MAC address of the MLD, and the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is based on a domain of the MLD, and wherein an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of: a peering instance by the MLD with a peer MLD, a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 1, Chitrakar teaches: the frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header carrying a plurality of addresses, each address of the plurality of addresses associated with one of a per-link address of the first communication link of the MLD or a MAC address of the MLD: “During CCMP decapsulation, if the Retry subfield of the FC field in MAC Header field 1410 has a value of 1 (i.e. indicating that the received MPDU is a retransmission), the receiving MLD uses the Address field 1406 to decide the MAC addresses to generate the AAD and Nonce. Referring to table 1408, if the value of the Address subfield 1406 is set to 0, the A1, A2, A3 fields in the AAD and the A2 field in the Nonce are to be set to the respective address fields of the MAC Header 1410” (Chitrakar ¶ 0087).
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 disclosure of Patil with the disclosure of Chitrakar to achieve the predictable result of allowing for the identification of specific links between devices to prevent reperforming cryptographic encapsulation unnecessarily. According to Chitrakar: “ AAD is based on a SC field of the MPDU, and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits the encapsulated MPDU to the second MLD on a first link as an initial transmission, and upon failure of the initial transmission, retransmits the encapsulated MPDU on a second link without reperforming the cryptographical encapsulation” (Chitrakar ¶ 0007).
Chitrakar does not teach: the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is assigned in accordance with a domain of the MLD, wherein an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 1, Adachi teaches: the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is assigned in accordance with a domain of the MLD: “Upon determining that there is no error in the MAC frame by the FCS, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each determines whether the MAC frame is addressed to its own terminal based on the RA field of the MAC header. When its MAC address of the wireless link is set in the PA field, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAC frame and determines whether it is necessary to transmit the response frame using the information of the MAC header . . . Whether the frame is from the same P33 is determined using an address field describing a BSS Identifier (hereinafter, referred to as a BSSID), which is a MAC address of the AP. In the MAC frame transmitted from the AP, the TA expresses the BSSID. When the RA field is a multicast address, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAE frame when the frame is from the same BSS and the multicast address includes its MAC address of the wireless link. The broadcast address and the multicast address are collectively referred to as a group address. When the group address is handled at the MLD, the MAC address of the AP MLD may be used instead of the BSSID” (Adachi ¶ 0081). In other words, the BSSID of the MLD, indicates the per link addresses, or the MAC address of the wireless links, are assigned in accordance with the BSS, or the domain, of the MLD.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Patil and Chitrakar with Adachi for the purpose of reducing overhead for indicating simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) relationships between links. According to Adachi: “for example, one bit thereof may be used as information for identifying the case where all the wireless links to be used are in STR link relationship with each other. In that case, the Non-STR Link subfield can be omitted. By doing so, the notification field length of the ML element can be shortened and efficiency can be improved” (Adachi ¶ 0248).
Adachi does not teach: an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches: an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD: “an MLD transmitting/receiving a TID-to-link mapping element after 5 performing multi-link (re)setup determines a link corresponding to each bit of a link mapping of TID field in consideration of an ID of a link set up with a counterpart MLD (peer MLD)” (Kim ¶ 0375).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Patil, Chitrakar, and Adachi with Kim for the purpose of complying with IEEE wireless LAN standards which promote multi-AP cooperation and higher transmission rates. According to Kim: “In order to support new multimedia applications, such as high-definition video and real-time games, the development of a new wireless LAN standard has begun to increase a maximum transmission rate. In IEEE 802.11be (extremely high throughput, EHT), which is a 7th generation wireless LAN standard, development of standards is underway aiming at supporting a transmission rate of up to 30 Gbps via a wider bandwidth, an increased spatial stream, multi-AP cooperation, and the like in a 2.4/5/6 GHz band. An aspect of the present invention is to provide a high-speed wireless LAN service for a new multimedia application, as described above” (Kim ¶ 0007-0008).
Regarding Claim 5, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises one of a Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol (HWMP) Mesh Path Selection frame, a Mesh Peering Open frame: “At time t.sub.1, the first device D1 transmits the first packet 921 on a first communication link to the second device D2. The first packet 921 may include ML information for the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links [Mesh peering open frame]” (Patil ¶ 0135), a Mesh Peering Confirm frame, a Mesh Peering Close frame, a Beacon frame, a Probe Response frame, a Re-association Request frame, a Re-association Response frame, or a Mesh Data frame.
Regarding Claim 8, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 1, wherein the frame includes one or both of: an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Capability element indicating one or more capabilities of the first device of the MLD: “In some implementations, the RNR element 2510 also includes one or more operating parameters of the first AP and the one or more virtual APs. The one or more operating parameters includes at least one of high-throughput (HT) operation element, very high-throughput (VHT) operation element, high efficiency (HE) operation element, extremely high-throughput (EHT) operation element” (Patil ¶ 0260) and one or more capabilities of each of one or more second devices of the MLD: “The multiple link attribute element 2520 may include one or more per-link profile elements, each per-link profile element of the one or more per-link profile elements including a corresponding unique link ID and capability information of one or more APs belonging to each multiple BSSID set of the one or more other multiple BSSID sets” (Patil ¶ 0261) wherein the RNR element and multiple link attribute element are contained within a frame according to “The AP MLD transmits a frame including an advertising information element carrying discovery information for the first AP of the AP MLD, including a first portion carrying discovery information for each secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs of the AP MLD, and including a second portion carrying common attributes of the one or more secondary APs of the AP MLD” (Patil abstract); or an EHT Operation element indicating one or more operation parameters for the first communication link of the MLD and one or more operation parameters for each of one or more second communication links associated with the one or more respective second devices of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 9, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a Mesh Peering Open frame outputted over the first communication link of the MLD to one or more devices of the peer MLD: “At time t.sub.1, the first device D1 transmits the first packet 921 on a first communication link to the second device D2. The first packet 921 may include ML information for the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links [Mesh peering open frame]” (Patil ¶ 0135), the Mesh Peering Open frame including a request to establish one or more peering instances on each of the first communication link of the MLD: “The second device D2 receives the first packet 921 from the first device D1 on the first communication link, and may use the discovery information carried in the first packet 921 to establish one or more ML parameters for communicating with one another on the first communication link” (Patil ¶ 0139) and one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD: “In some implementations, the first packet 921 may uniquely identify each link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links” (Patil ¶ 0135).
Regarding Claim 16, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 1, wherein the assignment of the one or more Link IDs is associated with: a request: “In some instances, the directed probe request may request one or more of discovery information, operating parameters, capabilities, or an operating class for each AP of the AP MLD. The directed probe request may also indicate one or more of capabilities, operating parameters, an operating class, or identification information of each STA of the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0014) for a Traffic Identifier (TID)-to-Link Mapping negotiation operation: “In some instances, the frame may also include one or more second ID fields, each field of the one or more second ID fields carrying at least one of a link identifier that identifies a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs or an MLD identifier that identifies the first AP MLD. Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0009), a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation, or a restricted TWT (r-TWT) operation on a peering instance associated with the first communication link.
Regarding Claim 18, Patil teaches: A method for wireless communication by a multi-link device (MLD), comprising: receiving or transmitting a frame on a first communication link associated with a first device of the MLD : “when executed by the at least one processor in conjunction with the at least one modem, causes the AP MLD to perform operations. The operations may include generating a frame by a first AP of the AP MLD associated with a first communication link of the AP MLD” (Patil ¶ 0013), the frame configured to include one or more Link Identifiers (IDs) associated with one or more communication links of the MLD: “the frame may also include one or more second ID fields, each field of the one or more second ID fields carrying at least one of a link identifier that identifies a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs or an MLD identifier that identifies the first AP MLD. Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0031).
Patil does not teach: the frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header carrying a plurality of addresses, each address of the plurality of addresses associated with one of a per-link address of the first communication link of the MLD or a MAC address of the MLD, and the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is based on a domain of the MLD, and wherein an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of: a peering instance by the MLD with a peer MLD, a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 18, Chitrakar teaches: the frame includes a medium access control (MAC) header carrying a plurality of addresses, each address of the plurality of addresses associated with one of a per-link address of the first communication link of the MLD or a MAC address of the MLD: “During CCMP decapsulation, if the Retry subfield of the FC field in MAC Header field 1410 has a value of 1 (i.e. indicating that the received MPDU is a retransmission), the receiving MLD uses the Address field 1406 to decide the MAC addresses to generate the AAD and Nonce. Referring to table 1408, if the value of the Address subfield 1406 is set to 0, the A1, A2, A3 fields in the AAD and the A2 field in the Nonce are to be set to the respective address fields of the MAC Header 1410” (Chitrakar ¶ 0087).
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 disclosure of Patil with the disclosure of Chitrakar to achieve the predictable result of allowing for the identification of specific links between devices to prevent reperforming cryptographic encapsulation unnecessarily. According to Chitrakar: “ AAD is based on a SC field of the MPDU, and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits the encapsulated MPDU to the second MLD on a first link as an initial transmission, and upon failure of the initial transmission, retransmits the encapsulated MPDU on a second link without reperforming the cryptographical encapsulation” (Chitrakar ¶ 0007).
Chitrakar does not teach: the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is assigned in accordance with a domain of the MLD, wherein an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 18, Adachi teaches: the MAC header comprising an indication that the per-link address is assigned in accordance with a domain of the MLD: “Upon determining that there is no error in the MAC frame by the FCS, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each determines whether the MAC frame is addressed to its own terminal based on the RA field of the MAC header. When its MAC address of the wireless link is set in the PA field, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAC frame and determines whether it is necessary to transmit the response frame using the information of the MAC header . . . Whether the frame is from the same P33 is determined using an address field describing a BSS Identifier (hereinafter, referred to as a BSSID), which is a MAC address of the AP. In the MAC frame transmitted from the AP, the TA expresses the BSSID. When the RA field is a multicast address, the lower MAC processing units 36 and 38 each extracts the Frame Body from the MAE frame when the frame is from the same BSS and the multicast address includes its MAC address of the wireless link. The broadcast address and the multicast address are collectively referred to as a group address. When the group address is handled at the MLD, the MAC address of the AP MLD may be used instead of the BSSID” (Adachi ¶ 0081). In other words, the BSSID of the MLD, indicates the per link addresses, or the MAC address of the wireless links, are assigned in accordance with the BSS, or the domain, of the MLD.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Patil and Chitrakar with Adachi for the purpose of reducing overhead for indicating simultaneous transmit and receive (STR) relationships between links. According to Adachi: “for example, one bit thereof may be used as information for identifying the case where all the wireless links to be used are in STR link relationship with each other. In that case, the Non-STR Link subfield can be omitted. By doing so, the notification field length of the ML element can be shortened and efficiency can be improved” (Adachi ¶ 0248).
Adachi does not teach: an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD.
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches: an assignment of the one or more link IDs is associated with one of a peering instance by the peer MLD with the MLD, or an agreement or negotiation between the MLD and the peer MLD: “an MLD transmitting/receiving a TID-to-link mapping element after 5 performing multi-link (re)setup determines a link corresponding to each bit of a link mapping of TID field in consideration of an ID of a link set up with a counterpart MLD (peer MLD)” (Kim ¶ 0375).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Patil, Chitrakar, and Adachi with Kim for the purpose of complying with IEEE wireless LAN standards which promote multi-AP cooperation and higher transmission rates. According to Kim: “In order to support new multimedia applications, such as high-definition video and real-time games, the development of a new wireless LAN standard has begun to increase a maximum transmission rate. In IEEE 802.11be (extremely high throughput, EHT), which is a 7th generation wireless LAN standard, development of standards is underway aiming at supporting a transmission rate of up to 30 Gbps via a wider bandwidth, an increased spatial stream, multi-AP cooperation, and the like in a 2.4/5/6 GHz band. An aspect of the present invention is to provide a high-speed wireless LAN service for a new multimedia application, as described above” (Kim ¶ 0007-0008).
Regarding Claim 21, Patil teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the frame comprises one of a Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol (HWMP) Mesh Path Selection frame, a Mesh Peering Open frame: “At time t.sub.1, the first device D1 transmits the first packet 921 on a first communication link to the second device D2. The first packet 921 may include ML information for the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links [Mesh peering open frame]” (Patil ¶ 0135), a Mesh Peering Confirm frame, a Mesh Peering Close frame, a Beacon frame, a Probe Response frame, a Re-association Request frame, a Re-association Response frame, or a Mesh Data frame.
Regarding Claim 24, Patil teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the frame includes one or both of: an Extremely High Throughput (EHT) Capability element indicating one or more capabilities of the first device of the MLD: “In some implementations, the RNR element 2510 also includes one or more operating parameters of the first AP and the one or more virtual APs. The one or more operating parameters includes at least one of high-throughput (HT) operation element, very high-throughput (VHT) operation element, high efficiency (HE) operation element, extremely high-throughput (EHT) operation element” (Patil ¶ 0260) and one or more capabilities of each of one or more second devices of the MLD: “The multiple link attribute element 2520 may include one or more per-link profile elements, each per-link profile element of the one or more per-link profile elements including a corresponding unique link ID and capability information of one or more APs belonging to each multiple BSSID set of the one or more other multiple BSSID sets” (Patil ¶ 0261) wherein the RNR element and multiple link attribute element are contained within a frame according to “The AP MLD transmits a frame including an advertising information element carrying discovery information for the first AP of the AP MLD, including a first portion carrying discovery information for each secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs of the AP MLD, and including a second portion carrying common attributes of the one or more secondary APs of the AP MLD” (Patil abstract); or an EHT Operation element indicating one or more operation parameters for the first communication link of the MLD and one or more operation parameters for each of one or more second communication links associated with the one or more respective second devices of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 25, Patil teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the frame comprises a Mesh Peering Open frame transmitted over the first communication link to one or devices of the peer MLD: “At time t.sub.1, the first device D1 transmits the first packet 921 on a first communication link to the second device D2. The first packet 921 may include ML information for the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links [Mesh peering open frame]” (Patil ¶ 0135), the Mesh Peering Open frame including a request to establish one or more peering instances on each of the first communication link of the MLD and one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD: “In some implementations, the first packet 921 may uniquely identify each link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links” (Patil ¶ 0135).
Regarding Claim 29, Patil teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the assignment of the one or more Link IDs is associated with: a request: “In some instances, the directed probe request may request one or more of discovery information, operating parameters, capabilities, or an operating class for each AP of the AP MLD. The directed probe request may also indicate one or more of capabilities, operating parameters, an operating class, or identification information of each STA of the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0014) for a Traffic Identifier (TID)-to-Link Mapping negotiation operation: “In some instances, the frame may also include one or more second ID fields, each field of the one or more second ID fields carrying at least one of a link identifier that identifies a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs or an MLD identifier that identifies the first AP MLD. Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0009), a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation, or a restricted TWT (r-TWT) operation on a peering instance associated with the first communication link.
Claims 3-4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil, Kim, and Chitrakar as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Patwardhan et al. (US 2023/0319550) hereinafter Patwardhan.
Regarding Claim 3, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 1, wherein the plurality of addresses includes: first and second addresses indicating respective receiver and transmitter addresses of the peering instance on the first communication link: “Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0009) wherein the embodiment of the application involving a mesh network would necessitate that the communication links are established between peer STAs as described in “In some cases, STAs 104 may form networks without APs 102 or other equipment other than the STAs 104 themselves” (Patil ¶ 0080), the first and second addresses associated with the per-link address of the first communication link: “each per-link profile subelement indicating the discovery information for a corresponding secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs associated with a respective secondary communication link of the one or more secondary communication links” (Patil ¶ 0009).
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: third and fourth addresses indicating respective mesh egress and mesh ingress points of the peering instance on the first communication link, the third and fourth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 3, Patwardhan teaches: third and fourth addresses indicating respective mesh egress and mesh ingress points of the peering instance on the first communication link, the third and fourth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD: “Some of the fields which in prior systems are not zeroed out during encryption include the address fields (address 1, address 2, address 3, address 4) in the MAC header. In a mesh network, the frame may need to traverse multiple access links and multiple access points maybe traversed. Address 3 may be the address of an access point that is associated a client involved in the communication. More generally, the usage of addresses 3 and 4 may depend on the topology of the network. In a mesh network, address 3 and 4 are the address of the ingress and egress of the mesh network” (Patwardhan ¶ 0044).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patwardhan to achieve the predictable result of reducing latency by allowing multiple channels to be active within a mesh network. According to Patwardhan: “sending data from a traffic session using the first available channel (selected from multiple channels) can improve throughput and reduce latency. The MLDs, AP MLD 202 and non-AP MLD 216, may be logical entities defined by the IEEE 802 family of standards to interface multiple MAC/physical layer (MAC/PHY) systems with each other.” (Patwardhan ¶ 0030).
Regarding Claim 4, Patil teaches: The MLD of claim 3, wherein the plurality of addresses further includes: fifth and sixth addresses indicating a respective destination and a source of the peering instance: “For example, the MAC header 412 may include a combination of a source address, a transmitter address, a receiver address, or a destination address” (Patil ¶ 0095), the fifth and sixth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD: “In some implementations, the frame may also include a first identifier (ID) field carrying a first identifier that uniquely identifies one or both of the AP MLD with which the first AP is associated or a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs” (Patil ¶ 0009).
Regarding Claim 19, Patil teaches: The method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of addresses includes: first and second addresses indicating respective receiver and transmitter addresses of the peering instance on the first communication link: “Each link identifier of the first link identifier and the one or more second link identifiers may associate one or more traffic identifiers (TIDs) with a respective communication link of the first communication link and the one or more secondary communication links for a block acknowledgement (BA) session between the AP MLD and the STA MLD” (Patil ¶ 0009) wherein the embodiment of the application involving a mesh network would necessitate that the communication links are established between peer STAs as described in “In some cases, STAs 104 may form networks without APs 102 or other equipment other than the STAs 104 themselves” (Patil ¶ 0080), the first and second addresses associated with the per-link address of the first communication link: “each per-link profile subelement indicating the discovery information for a corresponding secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs associated with a respective secondary communication link of the one or more secondary communication links” (Patil ¶ 0009).
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: third and fourth addresses indicating respective mesh egress and mesh ingress points of the peering instance on the first communication link, the third and fourth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 19, Patwardhan teaches: third and fourth addresses indicating respective mesh egress and mesh ingress points of the peering instance on the first communication link, the third and fourth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD: “Some of the fields which in prior systems are not zeroed out during encryption include the address fields (address 1, address 2, address 3, address 4) in the MAC header. In a mesh network, the frame may need to traverse multiple access links and multiple access points maybe traversed. Address 3 may be the address of an access point that is associated a client involved in the communication. More generally, the usage of addresses 3 and 4 may depend on the topology of the network. In a mesh network, address 3 and 4 are the address of the ingress and egress of the mesh network” (Patwardhan ¶ 0044).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patwardhan to achieve the predictable result of reducing latency by allowing multiple channels to be active within a mesh network. According to Patwardhan: “sending data from a traffic session using the first available channel (selected from multiple channels) can improve throughput and reduce latency. The MLDs, AP MLD 202 and non-AP MLD 216, may be logical entities defined by the IEEE 802 family of standards to interface multiple MAC/physical layer (MAC/PHY) systems with each other.” (Patwardhan ¶ 0030).
Regarding Claim 20, Patil teaches: The method of claim 19, wherein the plurality of addresses further includes: fifth and sixth addresses indicating a respective destination and a source of the peering instance: “For example, the MAC header 412 may include a combination of a source address, a transmitter address, a receiver address, or a destination address” (Patil ¶ 0095), the fifth and sixth addresses associated with the MAC address of the MLD: “In some implementations, the frame may also include a first identifier (ID) field carrying a first identifier that uniquely identifies one or both of the AP MLD with which the first AP is associated or a respective secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs” (Patil ¶ 0009).
Claims 6-7, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911) hereinafter Patil’911.
Regarding Claim 6, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The MLD of claim 1.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: the frame includes a Multi-Link element indicating first information for at least the first communication link of the MLD and second information for one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 6, Patil’911 teaches: the frame includes a Multi-Link element indicating first information for at least the first communication link of the MLD: “The operations may include receiving, from the first AP MLD on a first communication link of the first AP MLD, a frame including a first element carrying discovery information for the first AP and the one or more virtual APs belonging to the first multiple BSSID set” (Patil’911 ¶ 0027) and second information for one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD: “In some implementations, the second element may include a multi-link attribute element including one or more per-link profile subelements, each per-link profile subelement of the one or more per-link profile subelements carrying the discovery information for a corresponding secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs of the first AP MLD” (Patil’911 ¶ 0239).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patil’911 to achieve the predictable result of improving data throughput by using multiple concurrent communication channels. According to Patil’911: “The AP may establish BSSs on any of the different communication links, and therefore it is desirable to improve communication between the AP and the one or more STAs over each of the communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 7, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The MLD of claim 1.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the frame includes one or both of: a Traffic Identification (TID)-to-Link Mapping element indicating, for each TID of a plurality of TIDs, on which of the one or more communication links of the MLD that mesh data frames belonging to the respective TID are permitted, or a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation associated with the one or more communication links of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 7, Patil’911 teaches: wherein the frame includes one or both of: a Traffic Identification (TID)-to-Link Mapping element indicating, for each TID of a plurality of TIDs, on which of the one or more communication links of the MLD that mesh data frames belonging to the respective TID are permitted: “Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may allow an AP MLD device and a STA MLD to establish a common BA session with one another for MAC service data units (MSDUs) corresponding to one or more TIDs, and to affiliate (or “map”) each of the one or more TIDs with a corresponding group of communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0111) “the AP establishes a block acknowledgement (BA) session with the second wireless communication device that affiliates at least one traffic identifier (TID) to a first subset of the first communication link, the second communication link, and a third communication link” (Patil’911 ¶ 0116).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patil’911 to achieve the predictable result of improving data throughput by using multiple concurrent communication channels. According to Patil’911: “The AP may establish BSSs on any of the different communication links, and therefore it is desirable to improve communication between the AP and the one or more STAs over each of the communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 22, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The method of claim 18.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the frame includes a Multi-Link element indicating first information for at least the first communication link of the MLD and second information for each of one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 22, Patil’911 teaches: the frame includes a Multi-Link element indicating first information for at least the first communication link of the MLD: “The operations may include receiving, from the first AP MLD on a first communication link of the first AP MLD, a frame including a first element carrying discovery information for the first AP and the one or more virtual APs belonging to the first multiple BSSID set” (Patil’911 ¶ 0027) and second information for one or more second communication links associated with one or more respective second devices of the MLD: “In some implementations, the second element may include a multi-link attribute element including one or more per-link profile subelements, each per-link profile subelement of the one or more per-link profile subelements carrying the discovery information for a corresponding secondary AP of the one or more secondary APs of the first AP MLD” (Patil’911 ¶ 0239).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patil’911 to achieve the predictable result of improving data throughput by using multiple concurrent communication channels. According to Patil’911: “The AP may establish BSSs on any of the different communication links, and therefore it is desirable to improve communication between the AP and the one or more STAs over each of the communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 23, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The method of claim 18.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the frame includes one or both of: a Traffic Identification (TID)-to-Link Mapping element indicating, for each TID of a plurality of TIDs, on which of the one or more communication links of the MLD that mesh data frames belonging to the respective TID are permitted, or a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation associated with the one or more communication links of the MLD.
Regarding Claim 23, Patil’911 teaches: wherein the frame includes one or both of: a Traffic Identification (TID)-to-Link Mapping element indicating, for each TID of a plurality of TIDs, on which of the one or more communication links of the MLD that mesh data frames belonging to the respective TID are permitted: “Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may allow an AP MLD device and a STA MLD to establish a common BA session with one another for MAC service data units (MSDUs) corresponding to one or more TIDs, and to affiliate (or “map”) each of the one or more TIDs with a corresponding group of communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0111) “the AP establishes a block acknowledgement (BA) session with the second wireless communication device that affiliates at least one traffic identifier (TID) to a first subset of the first communication link, the second communication link, and a third communication link” (Patil’911 ¶ 0116).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Patil’911 to achieve the predictable result of improving data throughput by using multiple concurrent communication channels. According to Patil’911: “The AP may establish BSSs on any of the different communication links, and therefore it is desirable to improve communication between the AP and the one or more STAs over each of the communication links” (Patil’911 ¶ 0004).
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim as applied to claims 9 and 25 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2010/0157863) hereinafter Gong.
Regarding Claim 10, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The MLD of claim 9.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the MLD to: obtain a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating whether the requested peering instances are accepted or rejected by the respective device; and associate with the respective device on the first communication link of the MLD based on the Mesh Peering Open frame and the Mesh Peering Confirm frame.
Regarding Claim 10, Gong teaches: wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the MLD to: obtain a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating whether the requested peering instances are accepted or rejected by the respective device: “As described above with reference to FIG. 4, establishment of such peer links may involve a double handshaking procedure. Accordingly, FIG. 5 shows a first handshake 520 that begins with mesh point 504 sending a peer link open message 508. In response, mesh point 502 sends a peer link confirm message 510 to mesh point 504” (Gong ¶ 0059); and associate with the respective device on the first communication link of the MLD based on the Mesh Peering Open frame and the Mesh Peering Confirm frame: “this peer link establishment procedure involves a "double handshake" of peer link open and peer link confirm messages. Accordingly, a peer link is successfully established when both devices have sent and received peer link open and confirm messages” (Gong ¶ 0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gong Fig. 5
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Gong to achieve the predictable result of achieving quick and reliable establishment of peer-to-peer connections. According to Gong: “to ensure that a pending double handshake can be completed, embodiments require a PS MP to stay awake (e.g., remain in awake state 206) during its awake window, and to remain awake during a pending peer link set up process. This may advantageously promote fast and successful establishment of peer links” (Gong ¶ 0057).
Regarding Claim 26, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The method of claim 25.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: further comprising: receiving a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating whether the requested one or more peering instances are accepted or rejected by the respective device; and associating with the device on the first communication link of the MLD based on the Mesh Peering Open frame and the Mesh Peering Confirm frame.
Regarding Claim 26, Gong teaches: further comprising: receiving a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating whether the requested one or more peering instances are accepted or rejected by the respective device: “As described above with reference to FIG. 4, establishment of such peer links may involve a double handshaking procedure. Accordingly, FIG. 5 shows a first handshake 520 that begins with mesh point 504 sending a peer link open message 508. In response, mesh point 502 sends a peer link confirm message 510 to mesh point 504” (Gong ¶ 0059); and associating with the device on the first communication link of the MLD based on the Mesh Peering Open frame and the Mesh Peering Confirm frame: “this peer link establishment procedure involves a "double handshake" of peer link open and peer link confirm messages. Accordingly, a peer link is successfully established when both devices have sent and received peer link open and confirm messages” (Gong ¶ 0055).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Gong to achieve the predictable result of achieving quick and reliable establishment of peer-to-peer connections. According to Gong: “to ensure that a pending double handshake can be completed, embodiments require a PS MP to stay awake (e.g., remain in awake state 206) during its awake window, and to remain awake during a pending peer link set up process. This may advantageously promote fast and successful establishment of peer links” (Gong ¶ 0057).
Claims 11 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil and Kim as applied to claims 9 and 25 above, and further in view of Gong and Lee et al. (US 2013/0136016) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 11, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The MLD of claim 9.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the Mesh Peering Open frame indicates MLD capabilities of the first device and the one or more second devices of the MLD, and the processing system is further configured to cause the MLD to: obtain a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the respective device including a respective station (STA) or access point (AP) associated with each of the first communication link of the MLD and the one or more second communication links of the MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device; and associate the first device of the MLD with a first STA or AP of the respective device on the first communication link responsive to the MLD capabilities of the respective device while associating the one or more second devices of the MLD with one or more respective second STAs or APs of the respective device on the one or more respective second communication links.
Regarding Claim 11, Gong teaches: wherein the Mesh Peering Open frame indicates MLD capabilities of the first device and the one or more second devices of the MLD, and the processing system is further configured to cause the MLD to: obtain a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the respective device including a respective station (STA) or access point (AP) associated with each of the first communication link of the MLD and the one or more second communication links of the MLD: “As described above with reference to FIG. 4, establishment of such peer links may involve a double handshaking procedure. Accordingly, FIG. 5 shows a first handshake 520 that begins with mesh point 504 sending a peer link open message 508. In response, mesh point 502 sends a peer link confirm message 510 to mesh point 504” (Gong ¶ 0059); and associate the first device of the MLD with a first STA or AP of the respective device on the first communication link responsive to the MLD capabilities of the respective device while associating the one or more second devices of the MLD with one or more respective second STAs or APs of the respective device on the one or more respective second communication links: “this peer link establishment procedure involves a "double handshake" of peer link open and peer link confirm messages. Accordingly, a peer link is successfully established when both devices have sent and received peer link open and confirm messages” (Gong ¶ 0055).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Gong to achieve the predictable result of achieving quick and reliable establishment of peer-to-peer connections. According to Gong: “to ensure that a pending double handshake can be completed, embodiments require a PS MP to stay awake (e.g., remain in awake state 206) during its awake window, and to remain awake during a pending peer link set up process. This may advantageously promote fast and successful establishment of peer links” (Gong ¶ 0057).
Gong does not teach: the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches: the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device: “information on capability related to the VHT wireless LAN function supported by the mesh STA is included in the mesh peering open frames and the mesh peering confirm frames used when the peer link is configured in the mesh BSS” (Lee ¶ 0064) .
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, Kim, and Gong with the disclosure of Lee to achieve the predictable result of allowing for a method of supporting very high throughput and therefore extremely high throughput, is required. According to Lee: “a method of supporting the VHT wireless LAN technology in the IEEE 802.11s based mesh network is required” (Lee ¶ 0010).
Regarding Claim 27, Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim teach: The method of claim 25.
Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim fail to teach: wherein the Mesh Peering Open frame indicates MLD capabilities of the first device and the one or more second devices of the MLD, the method further comprising: receiving a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the respective device including a respective station (STA) or access point (AP) associated with each of the first communication link of the MLD and the one or more second communication links of the MLD, the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device; and associating the first device of the MLD with a first STA or AP of the respective device on the first communication link responsive to the MLD capabilities of the respective device while associating the one or more second devices of the MLD with one or more respective second STAs or APs of the respective device on the one or more respective second communication links.
Regarding Claim 27, Gong teaches: the Mesh Peering Open frame indicates MLD capabilities of the first device and the one or more second devices of the MLD, the method further comprising: receiving a Mesh Peering Confirm frame on the first communication link from a respective device of the one or more devices of the peer MLD, the respective device including a respective station (STA) or access point (AP) associated with each of the first communication link of the MLD and the one or more second communication links of the MLD: “As described above with reference to FIG. 4, establishment of such peer links may involve a double handshaking procedure. Accordingly, FIG. 5 shows a first handshake 520 that begins with mesh point 504 sending a peer link open message 508. In response, mesh point 502 sends a peer link confirm message 510 to mesh point 504” (Gong ¶ 0059); associating the first device of the MLD with a first STA or AP of the respective device on the first communication link responsive to the MLD capabilities of the respective device while associating the one or more second devices of the MLD with one or more respective second STAs or APs of the respective device on the one or more respective second communication links: “this peer link establishment procedure involves a "double handshake" of peer link open and peer link confirm messages. Accordingly, a peer link is successfully established when both devices have sent and received peer link open and confirm messages” (Gong ¶ 0055).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, and Kim with the disclosure of Gong to achieve the predictable result of achieving quick and reliable establishment of peer-to-peer connections. According to Gong: “to ensure that a pending double handshake can be completed, embodiments require a PS MP to stay awake (e.g., remain in awake state 206) during its awake window, and to remain awake during a pending peer link set up process. This may advantageously promote fast and successful establishment of peer links” (Gong ¶ 0057).
Gong does not teach: the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device.
Regarding Claim 27, Lee teaches: the Mesh Peering Confirm frame indicating MLD capabilities of the respective STAs or APs of the respective device: “information on capability related to the VHT wireless LAN function supported by the mesh STA is included in the mesh peering open frames and the mesh peering confirm frames used when the peer link is configured in the mesh BSS” (Lee ¶ 0064).
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 disclosures of Patil, Chitrakar, Adachi, Kim, and Gong with the disclosure of Lee to achieve the predictable result of allowing for a method of supporting very high throughput and therefore extremely high throughput, is required. According to Lee: “a method of supporting the VHT wireless LAN technology in the IEEE 802.11s based mesh network is required” (Lee ¶ 0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 and 28 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.
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 BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473