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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14, and 19 are amended.
Claim 13 is canceled.
Claims 20 and 21 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 12/25/2025 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-16, and 19-21 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 7-12 and 14 have overcome the objection to claims 7-12 and 14 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 9/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 14 and 21 (pages 10-13) in a reply filed 12/25/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 21:
Applicant contends, in page 12, that “However, Zhou does not appear to disclose "perform, after the failure condition is identified and prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to a second access point, a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point using a second multi-link connection that includes the first link and the at least one other link, the verification being performed while a connection is maintained with the first access point via the first link" as claimed in amended claim 1. (Emphasis added.) For example, Zhou makes not mention of a first and second "multi-link connection." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Zhou with the teachings of Gan in a manner that results in the features of amended claim 1. For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant submits that Gan in combination with Zhou does not disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is allowable over Gan and Zhou.”
Applicant also contends, in page 13, that “For at least reasons similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that Gan does not disclose the features of amended claim 14. For example, Gan does not disclose at least "receive, via the at least one transceiver, at least one first message from a wireless station via a first link, the at least one first message being associated with a verification, that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP), prior to a handover of the wireless station from a first access point to the apparatus, to determine that a connection between the wireless station and a gateway can be made via the apparatus via a multi-link connection using the first link and a second link" as claimed in amended claim 14. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 14 is allowable over Gan.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. During examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation consistent with the specification. In addition, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In order to establish prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, Zhou is only applied to cure deficiencies of Gan for “performing a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point”, not for the use of “a multi-link connection that includes the first link and the at least one other link” since Gan already clearly teaches wherein Non-AP MLD communicates with AP MLD 2 via Link of STA 1 (equivalent to the first link) and Link of STA 2 (equivalent to the at least one other link) of a plurality of links (see, Gan: Fig. 10).
Zhou teaches wherein, in para. [0095], “When detecting that the signal strength of the AP 1 decreases gradually, and that the signal strength of the AP 2 gradually increases gradually (for example, gradually move away from the AP 1 and move toward the AP 2), the user terminal C decides to roam to the AP 2. At this point, the user terminal C may send a roaming request to the AP2 by using the following two methods.” and, in para. [0097], “the user terminal C sends an ARP request to the AP2 by using the IP address assigned by the AP 1 to verify whether the network environment is available. The default gateway IP address and the gateway MAC address of the user terminal C are the addresses assigned by the AP1. The AP 2 compares the network environment from the user terminal C with its own network environment.”, wherein the user terminal, the AP1, the AP2, the gateway, and the roaming of Zhou are equivalent to the apparatus, the first access point, the second access point, the gateway, and the handover of the instant application, respectively. Zhou teaches wherein the user terminal decides to roam (i.e., handover) to the AP2, after failure condition is identified (e.g., when detecting that the signal strength of the AP 1 decreases gradually) and prior to a handover of the terminal from the AP1 to the AP2, and sends the ARP request to verify the connection to the gateway is available via the AP2 before the terminal roams in the AP2. Note that the connection verification to the gateway using ARP via the AP2 occurs prior to a roaming (i.e., handover) to the AP2. It is well known in the art that ARP is commonly used to verify whether a device is still present on the network, often without actually needing to access the device.
Therefore, the disclosure of Gan in view of Zhou reads on the limitations as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, it is suggested to amend the claim to read “…; communicate, via the at least one transceiver, with the wireless station via the multi-link connection using the first link and [[a]]the second link after the at least one second message is transmitted.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 5, 6, 10-12, 14-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan et al. (EP 4145947 A1, hereinafter Gan) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2020/0382939 A1, hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 1:
Gan teaches an apparatus (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Non-AP MLD; Fig. 17, Communication apparatus 1) for wireless communication, the apparatus comprising: at least one transceiver (see, Gan: Fig. 17, Transceiver unit 12); at least one memory configured to store processor-executable code; and at least one processor (see, Gan: Fig. 17, Non-AP MLD and para. [0033], “The non-AP MLD may further include a memory. The memory is configured to be coupled to the processor, and the memory stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the non-AP MLD.”) configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to:
communicate, via the at least one transceiver, with a first access point (see, Gan: Fig. 10, AP MLD 1) via a first multi-link connection (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link 11 and Link 12) comprising a plurality of links (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link of STA 1 and Link of STA2), wherein the plurality of links includes a first link and at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 10, wherein Non-AP MLD communicates with AP MLD 1 via Link of STA 1 (equivalent to the first link) and Link of STA 2 (equivalent to the at least one other link) of a plurality of links.);
identify a failure condition associated with the at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0116], “The non-AP MLD sends link state indication information to the AP MLD 1. The link state indication information indicates that a state of a link 12 (link 12) is disconnected (or disabled).”; Also, see para. [0118], wherein the link 12 (i.e., Link of STA 2) is failed.);
perform, after the failure condition is identified and prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to a second access point (see, Gan: Fig. 11A & Fig. 11B, wherein the DS-STA-Nofity.request step is performed after the failed condition is identified in the Link 12 and prior to switching the links to AP MLD 2 using Link21 and Link 22), a verification to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway (e.g., a distribution system) via a second access point (see, Gan: Fig. 10, AP MLD 2) using a second multi-link connection (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link 21 and Link 22) that includes the first link (i.e., Link of STA 1) and the at least one other link (i.e., Link of STA 2) (see, Gan: para. [0128], “The non-AP MLD sends a STA-AP mapping notify frame to the AP MLD 2 at a specific moment, to trigger the AP MLD 2 to send the DS-STA-Notify.request primitive to notify the DS to update the STA-AP mapping information.”; para. [0130], “The AP MLD 2 returns an acknowledgment frame to the non-AP MLD, and sends the DS-STA-Notify.request primitive to notify the DS to update the STA-AP mapping information.”, wherein a verification that a connection can be made to the distribution system (equivalent to the gateway of the instant application) via AP MLD 2 (equivalent to the second access point of the instant application) is performed to notify the Distribution System (DS) to update the STA-AP mapping information so that “when a multi-link device roams, an interruption time of data transmission can be reduced, and ideally, data transmission is not interrupted in a roaming process. In other words, there is always an available link for data transmission at any moment.” see, Gan: para. [0112]), the verification being performed while a connection is maintained with the first access point via the first link (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0122], “this is because the STA 1 (namely, STA 1@Non-AP MLD) of non-AP MLD is not disconnected from the AP MLD 1, in other words, a state of the link 11 between the STA 1 and the AP 11 is enabled.”).
Gan does not explicitly teach wherein performing a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches wherein performing a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point (see, Zhou: para. [0097], “the user terminal C sends an ARP request to the AP2 by using the IP address assigned by the AP 1 to verify whether the network environment is available. The default gateway IP address and the gateway MAC address of the user terminal C are the addresses assigned by the AP1. The AP 2 compares the network environment from the user terminal C with its own network environment. Due to the configuration of the wireless access system, the AP1 and the AP2 are in the same network environment, so the AP 2 may send arp response message back to the user terminal C, indicating that the wireless roaming is successful.”, wherein the user terminal, the AP1, the AP2, the gateway, and the roaming of Zhou are equivalent to the apparatus, the first access point, the second access point, the gateway, and the handover of the instant application, respectively. In para. [0095], Zhou teaches wherein the user terminal decides to roam (i.e., handover) to the AP2 and sends the ARP request to verify the connection to the gateway is available via the AP2 before the terminal roams in the AP2. Accordingly, Zhou teaches wherein the user terminal decides to roam (i.e., handover) to the AP2, after failure condition is identified (e.g., when detecting that the signal strength of the AP 1 decreases gradually) and prior to a handover of the terminal from the AP1 to the AP2, and sends the ARP request to verify the connection to the gateway is available via the AP2 before the terminal roams in the AP2. Note that the connection verification to the gateway using ARP via the AP2 occurs prior to a roaming (i.e., handover) to the AP2. It is well known in the art that ARP is commonly used to verify whether a device is still present on the network, often without actually needing to access the device.).
Although, Zhou does not explicitly teach the use of “a multi-link connection that includes the first link and the at least one other link”, Zhou is only applied to cure deficiencies of Gan for “performing a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point”, since Gan already clearly teaches wherein Non-AP MLD communicates with AP MLD 1 via Link of STA 1 (equivalent to the first link) and Link of STA 2 (equivalent to the at least one other link) of a plurality of links (see, Gan: Fig. 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gan in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order to for the user terminal (e.g., Non-AP MLD) to verify whether the network environment (such as gateway) is available before roaming (i.e., handing over) on to another AP (see, Zhou: para. [0095-0097]).
Gan in view of Zhou further teaches wherein the apparatus configured to communicate, via the at least one transceiver, with the second access point via the second multi-link connection (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link 21 and Link 22) after the verification, that employs the ARP, is performed (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0133], “The STA 1 (namely, STA 1@Non-AP MLD) of the non-AP MLD … then switches to a channel 1 of a band 3 (namely, CH 1@Band 3) to exchange data with the AP 21 (namely, AP 21@AP MLD 2) of the AP MLD 2.”. Also, see Fig. 11B, “Link 21: Data Transfer” and “Link 22: Data transfer” between the Non-AP MLD and AP MLD 2 after switching from AP MLD 1.).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: terminate the first multi-link connection after the second multi-link connection is established (see, Gan: para. [0133], “The STA 1 (namely, STA 1@Non-AP MLD) of the non-AP MLD sends a multi-link disassociation (multilink disassociation) frame to the AP MLD 1, and then switches to a channel 1 of a band 3 (namely, CH 1@Band 3) to exchange data with the AP 21 (namely, AP 21@AP MLD 2) of the AP MLD 2.”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: scan, via the at least one transceiver, for at least one target access point for handover of the apparatus after the failure condition is identified (see, Gan: Fig. 13b and para. [0152], “(a) The non-AP MLD sends multilink association request (Multi-link Association Request) frames over multiple links (for example, a link 1, a link 2, and a link 3 in FIG. 13b), initiates tentative associations with multiple AP MLDs (for example, an AP MLD 1, an AP MLD 2, and an AP MLD 3 in FIG. 13b), and indicates, in the association request frames, that another link is in a disabled state, (b) The non-AP MLD determines a target AP MLD based on whether the associations are successful, capabilities of the AP MLDs, and quality of links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLDs, in other words, determines the AP MLD with which the non-AP MLD is to be finally associated. (c) The non-AP MLD sends an EAP-Start frame to trigger processes of 802.1X authentication and PTK and GTK derivation through 4-way handshake with the target AP MLD.”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: commence the verification, that employs the ARP, prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to the second access point, to determine that the connection can be made to the gateway via the second access point responsive to a determination that connectivity cannot be established to the gateway via a third access point after the failure condition is identified (see, Gan: Fig. 13b and para. [0152], “(a) The non-AP MLD sends multilink association request (Multi-link Association Request) frames over multiple links (for example, a link 1, a link 2, and a link 3 in FIG. 13b), initiates tentative associations with multiple AP MLDs (for example, an AP MLD 1, an AP MLD 2, and an AP MLD 3 in FIG. 13b), and indicates, in the association request frames, that another link is in a disabled state, (b) The non-AP MLD determines a target AP MLD based on whether the associations are successful, capabilities of the AP MLDs, and quality of links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLDs, in other words, determines the AP MLD with which the non-AP MLD is to be finally associated. (c) The non-AP MLD sends an EAP-Start frame to trigger processes of 802.1X authentication and PTK and GTK derivation through 4-way handshake with the target AP MLD.”, wherein the AP MLD 3 is equivalent to the third access point of the instant application and wherein the association not being successful is equivalent to the determination that connectivity cannot be established with a third access point (e.g., AP MLD 3) and the non-AP MLD sending the EAP-start frame to trigger authentication process is equivalent to commencing the verification of the connection to the AP MLD 2 according to para. [0121] of Gan before sending a multi-link reassociation request to the AP MLD 2.).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan in view of Zhou further teaches wherein, to perform the verification, that employes the ARP, prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to the second access point, to determine that the connection can be made to the gateway via the second access point, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, an association request to the second access point via the at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0121], “STA 2@Non-AP MLD switches to a link 22 (link 22) to start BSS transition, first performs an 802.11 open authentication process with the AP MLD 2, and then sends a multi-link reassociation request (multi-link reassociation request) frame.”, wherein the multi-link reassociation request is equivalent to the association request of the instant application. Para. [0087] teaches that multiple first STAs (e.g., Link of STA 1 and Link of STA 2) in the non-AP MLD may simultaneously perform processes of 802.1X authentication, wherein the Link of STA 2 is equivalent to the at least one other link of the instant application.); and receive, via the at least one transceiver, an association response from the second access point via the at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0126], “The AP MLD 2 returns a multi-link reassociation response (multi-link association response) frame to the STA 2 of the non-AP MLD over the link 22.”, wherein the multi-link reassociation response is equivalent to the association response of the instant application.).
Regarding claim 11:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan in view of Zhou further teaches wherein, to perform the verification, that employes the ARP, prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to the second access point, to determine that the connection can be made to the gateway via the second access point, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first extensible authentication protocol over local area network (EAPOL) message to the second access point via the first link (see, Gan: Fig. 8; para. [0085], “The non-AP MLD performs processes of 802.1X authentication and PTK and GTK derivation through 4-way handshake with the one or more second AP MLDs.”; para. [0152], “The non-AP MLD sends an EAP-Start frame to trigger processes of 802.1X authentication and PTK and GTK derivation through 4-way handshake with the target AP MLD.”, wherein the EAP stands for extensible authentication protocol. Para. [0087] teaches that multiple first STAs (e.g., Link of STA 1 and Link of STA 2) in the non-AP MLD may simultaneously perform processes of 802.1X authentication, wherein the Link of STA 1 is equivalent to the first link of the instant application.); and receive, via the at least one transceiver, a second EAPOL message from the second access point via the first link (see, Gan: Fig. 8, EAP request/identity and EAP-success sent from AP MLD to Non-AP MLD.).
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan in view of Zhou further teaches wherein, to perform the verification, that employes the ARP, prior to a handover of the apparatus from the first access point to the second access point, to determine that the connection can be made to the gateway via the second access point, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first extensible authentication protocol over local area network (EAPOL) message to the second access point via the at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 8; para. [0152], “The non-AP MLD sends an EAP-Start frame to trigger processes of 802.1X authentication and PTK and GTK derivation through 4-way handshake with the target AP MLD.”, wherein the EAP stands for extensible authentication protocol. Para. [0087] teaches that multiple first STAs (e.g., Link of STA 1 and Link of STA 2) in the non-AP MLD may simultaneously perform processes of 802.1X authentication, wherein the Link of STA 2 is equivalent to the at least one other link of the instant application.); and receive, via the at least one transceiver, a second EAPOL message from the second access point via the at least one other link (see, Gan: Fig. 8, EAP request/identity and EAP-success sent from AP MLD to Non-AP MLD.).
Regarding claim 14:
Gan teaches an apparatus (see, Gan: Fig. 10, AP MLD 2) for wireless communication, the apparatus comprising: at least one transceiver (see, Gan: Fig. 18, Transceiver unit 21); at least one memory configured to store processor-executable code; and at least one processor (see, Gan: Fig. 18, AP MLD and para. [0035], “The AP MLD may further include a memory. The memory is configured to be coupled to the processor, and the memory stores program instructions and data that are necessary for the AP MLD.”) configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, at least one first message from a wireless station (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Non-AP MLD) via a first link (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link of STA 2), the at least one first message (e.g., a multi-link reassociation request) being associated with a verification, prior to a handover of the wireless station from the first access point to the apparatus (see, Gan: Fig. 11A & Fig. 11B, wherein the DS-STA-Nofity.request step is performed after the failed condition is identified in the Link 12 and prior to switching the links to AP MLD 2 using Link21 and Link 22), to determine that a connection between the wireless station and a gateway (e.g., a distribution system) can be made via the apparatus via a multi-link connection (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link 21 and Link 22) using the first link (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link of STA 2) and s second link (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link of STA 1) (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0120], “The STA 2 of the non-AP MLD (namely, STA 2@Non-AP MLD) switches to a channel 2 of a band 4 (namely, CH 2@Band 4), and initiates a multi-link tentative association with the AP MLD 2.”; para. [0121], “STA 2@Non-AP MLD switches to a link 22 (link 22) to start BSS transition, first performs an 802.11 open authentication process with the AP MLD 2, and then sends a multi-link reassociation request (multi-link reassociation request) frame.”; para. [0128], “The non-AP MLD sends a STA-AP mapping notify frame to the AP MLD 2 at a specific moment, to trigger the AP MLD 2 to send the DS-STA-Notify.request primitive to notify the DS to update the STA-AP mapping information.”; para. [0130], “The AP MLD 2 returns an acknowledgment frame to the non-AP MLD, and sends the DS-STA-Notify.request primitive to notify the DS to update the STA-AP mapping information.”, wherein a verification that a connection can be made to the distribution system (equivalent to the gateway of the instant application) via AP MLD 2 (equivalent to the second access point of the instant application) is performed to notify the Distribution System (DS) to update the STA-AP mapping information so that “when a multi-link device roams, an interruption time of data transmission can be reduced, and ideally, data transmission is not interrupted in a roaming process. In other words, there is always an available link for data transmission at any moment.” (see, Gan: para. [0112]).
Gan does not explicitly teach wherein performing a verification, that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP), to determine that a connection between the wireless station and a gateway can be made via the apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches wherein performing a verification, that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP), to determine that a connection between the wireless station and a gateway can be made via the apparatus (see, Zhou: para. [0097], “the user terminal C sends an ARP request to the AP2 by using the IP address assigned by the AP 1 to verify whether the network environment is available. The default gateway IP address and the gateway MAC address of the user terminal C are the addresses assigned by the AP1. The AP 2 compares the network environment from the user terminal C with its own network environment. Due to the configuration of the wireless access system, the AP1 and the AP2 are in the same network environment, so the AP 2 may send arp response message back to the user terminal C, indicating that the wireless roaming is successful.”, wherein the user terminal, the AP1, the AP2, the gateway, and the roaming of Zhou are equivalent to the wireless station, the first access point, the apparatus, the gateway, and the handover of the instant application, respectively. In para. [0095], Zhou teaches wherein the user terminal decides to roam (i.e., handover) to the AP2 and sends the ARP request to verify the connection to the gateway is available via the AP2 before the terminal roams in the AP2. Accordingly, Zhou teaches wherein the user terminal decides to roam (i.e., handover) to the AP2, after failure condition is identified (e.g., when detecting that the signal strength of the AP 1 decreases gradually) and prior to a handover of the terminal from the AP1 to the AP2, and sends the ARP request to verify the connection to the gateway is available via the AP2 before the terminal roams in the AP2. Note that the connection verification to the gateway using ARP via the AP2 occurs prior to a roaming (i.e., handover) to the AP2. It is well known in the art that ARP is commonly used to verify whether a device is still present on the network, often without actually needing to access the device.).
Although, Zhou does not explicitly teach the use of “a multi-link connection that includes the first link and the at least one other link”, Zhou is only applied to cure deficiencies of Gan for “performing a verification that employs an address resolution protocol (ARP) to determine that a connection can be made to a gateway via the second access point”, since Gan already clearly teaches wherein Non-AP MLD communicates with AP MLD 1 via Link of STA 1 (equivalent to the first link) and Link of STA 2 (equivalent to the at least one other link) of a plurality of links (see, Gan: Fig. 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gan in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order to for the user terminal (e.g., Non-AP MLD) to verify whether the network environment (such as gateway) is available before roaming (i.e., handing over) on to another AP (see, Zhou: para. [0095-0097]).
Gan in view of Zhou further teaches wherein the apparatus configured to transmit, via the at least one transceiver, at least one second message (e.g., a multi-link reassociation response) to the wireless station via the first link in response to the at least one first message, the at least one second message comprising an indication that the connection between the wireless station and the gateway can be made via the apparatus (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0126], “The AP MLD 2 returns a multi-link reassociation response (multi-link association response) frame to the STA 2 of the non-AP MLD over the link 22.”. Also, see Fig. 11A, wherein the multi-link reassociation response is received by the link of STA2.); and
communicate, via the at least one transceiver, with the wireless station via the multi-link connection (e.g., Link 21 and Link 22) using the first link and a second link (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Link of AP 21 and Link of AP 22) after the at least one second message is transmitted (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0133], “The STA 1 (namely, STA 1@Non-AP MLD) of the non-AP MLD … then switches to a channel 1 of a band 3 (namely, CH 1@Band 3) to exchange data with the AP 21 (namely, AP 21@AP MLD 2) of the AP MLD 2.”. Also, see Fig. 11B, “Link 21: Data Transfer” and “Link 22: Data transfer” between the Non-AP MLD and AP MLD 2 after switching from AP MLD 1.).
Regarding claim 15:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 14.
Gan further teaches wherein: the at least one first message comprises an association request (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0121], “STA 2@Non-AP MLD switches to a link 22 (link 22) to start BSS transition, first performs an 802.11 open authentication process with the AP MLD 2, and then sends a multi-link reassociation request (multi-link reassociation request) frame.”, wherein the multi-link reassociation request is equivalent to the at least one first message of the instant application.); and the at least one second message comprises an association response (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0126], “The AP MLD 2 returns a multi-link reassociation response (multi-link association response) frame to the STA 2 of the non-AP MLD over the link 22.”, wherein the multi-link reassociation response is equivalent to the at least one second message of the instant application.).
Regarding claim 16:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 14.
Gan further teaches wherein: the at least one first message comprises a first extensible authentication protocol over local area network (EAPOL) message (see, Gan: Fig. 8; para. [0152], “The non-AP MLD sends an EAP-Start frame to trigger processes of 802.1X authentication … with the target AP MLD.”, wherein the EAP stands for extensible authentication protocol.); and the at least one second message comprises a second EAPOL message (see, Gan: Fig. 8, EAP request/identity and EAP-success sent from AP MLD to Non-AP MLD.).
Regarding claim 19:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 14.
Gan further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured as an access point (see, Gan: Fig. 10, Access Point Multi-Link Device, AP MLD 2).
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured as a wireless station (see, Gan: Fig. 10 and para. [0047], “The multi-radio (Radio) multi-link device includes multiple affiliated stations (affiliated STA). The affiliated station may be an access point (access point, AP) or a non-access point station (non-access point station, non-AP STA). For ease of description, in this application, a multi-link device whose affiliated station is an AP may be referred to as a multilink AP, a multi-link AP device, or an AP multi-link device (AP multi-link device, AP MLD), and a multi-link device whose affiliated station is a non-AP STA may be referred to as a multi-link non-AP, a multi-link non-AP device, or a non-AP multi-link device (non-AP multi-link device, non-AP MLD). For ease of description, "the multi-link device includes an affiliated station" is also briefly described as "the multi-link device includes a station" in embodiments of this application.”, wherein the Non-AP MLD in Fig. 10 is configured as a wireless station, as opposed to being configured as an access point (e.g., AP MLD 1 or AP MLD 2 in Fig. 10.).
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is directed towards a method that follows the same steps described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Zhou further in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0322162 A1, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan in view of Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein, to identify failure condition, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: measure a received signal strength of a signal received via the at least one other link and the at least one transceiver; compare the received signal strength to a threshold; and trigger the verification based on the comparison of the received signal strength to the threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein, to identify failure condition, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: measure a received signal strength of a signal received via the at least one other link and the at least one transceiver; compare the received signal strength to a threshold; and trigger the verification based on the comparison of the received signal strength to the threshold (see, Wu: para. [0009], “searching for a signal from a network access device other than the original network access device when signal strength or signal quality of the original network access device is lower than a first preset threshold value for a first preset detection time period; and determining the network access device as the target network access device when the signal strength or the signal quality of the network access device is higher than a second preset threshold value for a second preset detection time period.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gan in view of Zhou in combination of the teachings of Wu in order to select a target network access device that meets a condition (e.g., signal strength or signal quality of the network access device being higher than a preset threshold value) (see, Wu: Abstract and para. [0009]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gan in view of Zhou further in view of Awada et al. (US 2020/0100161 A1, hereinafter Awada).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Gan in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Gan in view of Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein, to identify failure condition, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: calculate a traffic error rate associated with the at least one other link; compare the traffic error rate to a threshold; and trigger the verification based on the comparison of the traffic error rate to the threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Awada teaches wherein, to identify failure condition, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the processor-executable code to cause the apparatus to: calculate a traffic error rate associated with the at least one other link; compare the traffic error rate to a threshold; and trigger the verification based on the comparison of the traffic error rate to the threshold (see, Awada: para. [0004], “When a radio link is active, its quality may be monitored, to provide inputs to handover decisions and power control algorithms, for example. A radio link failure, RLF, is a situation where a radio link is determined to have become inoperative, for example due to continuity of the radio link failing at the physical layer. A RLF may occur, for example, in case interference near the mobile unexpectedly peaks. In practical terms, a determination that an RLF has occurred may be based on a signal level threshold, a signal-over-noise level threshold, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio threshold, a block error rate threshold or a loss of synchronization, for example.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gan in view of Zhou in combination of the teachings of Awada in order to consider a block error rate (e.g., traffic error rate) based on a threshold when providing inputs for handover decision (see, Awada: Abstract and para. [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471