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 RCE filed 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,4,16,19,29,32, and 40 are amended.
Claims 3,6-10,14,15,18,21-25,28,31, and 34-38 are cancelled.
Claims 1,2,4,5,11-13,16,17,19,20,26,27,29,30,32,33,39, and 40 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,11-13,16,17,26,27,29,30,39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar (US 20230232315) in view of Fang (US 20250267743).
Re claim 1:
Chitrakar discloses a system for multi-link transmission in a wireless network comprising multiple nodes, each node defining a corresponding coverage area and being configured to perform operations in the wireless network, the system comprising (Fig. 10A shows multiples nodes AP MLD 1 and 2 with coverage areas):
a device configured to transition between nodes and corresponding coverage areas and perform operations in the wireless network (Fig.10A ref. Non-AP MLD 1, 2 and ref. Non-AP STA-3 and Fig. 8);
a controller configured to cause transmission of data between the device and a set of nodes using a multi-link connection, the multi-link comprising a first transmission link and a second transmission link associating the device with the set of nodes (Fig.8 and Fig.10B shows a first link Link 1 and a second link Link 2/3 and AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2);
the controller being further configured to cause transmission of data over one or both of the first transmission link and the second transmission link (Fig.10B ref. Link 1 and ref. Link 2/3);
a same frequency and a same cell identifier being allocated to the set of nodes for the transmission of data in the first transmission link, the first transmission link configured to be used for mobility operations when the device is transitioning from a coverage area of one node into a coverage area of a neighboring node in the set of nodes (Fig.10B ref. link 1 SSID: IOT and ref. VAP Set 3 has a set of nodes with respective coverage areas – Examiner Note SSID is a cell identifier); and
cell identifiers that are different from the cell identifiers allocated to the set of nodes for the transmission of data in the first transmission link configured to be used for mobility operations when the device is nodes for the transmission of data in the second transmission link (Fig.10 B shows Link 2 and Link 3 and a different cell identifiers SSID Staff and SSID Guest).
As shown above, Chitrakar shows a device being served by two nodes. Chitrakar does not explicitly state a transition from a coverage area.
Fang discloses a transition from a coverage area (Para.[0065] A non-AP MLD 110 may be within a communication range of a first AP MLD 120 and/or a second AP MLD 122, which can establish an infrastructure multi-link BSS (e.g., ML-BSS1 and ML-BSS2)).
Chitrakar and Fang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include transitioning from a coverage area as taught by Fang in order to improve transmission reliability and increase transmission throughput (Fang Para.[0006]).
Re claim 2:
As discussed above, Chitrakar meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to cause transmission of data over the one or both of the first transmission link and the second transmission link depending on the operations to be performed, wherein the first transmission link is configured to be used for operations with critical time requirements, and wherein the second transmission link is configured to be used for operations with non-critical time requirements.
Fang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to cause transmission of data over the one or both of the first transmission link and the second transmission link depending on the operations to be performed, wherein the first transmission link is configured to be used for operations with critical time requirements, and wherein the second transmission link is configured to be used for operations with non-critical time requirements (Para.[0068] In some embodiments, the AP MLD and non-AP MLD can leverage joint or selective transmission modes over one or multi-links (e.g. radio frequency channels) to reduce access latency, improve transmission reliability, and/or increase transmission throughput via the control of a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110), an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122), and/or coordinated by the MLD-MBSS Controller 150. ML communication may generally include bi-directional transmission between a non-AP MLD and an AP MLD via one or more of the multiple links between them. ML transmission may involve different transmission modes).
Chitrakar and Fang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include determining to use multiple links based on time requirements as taught by Fang in order to improve transmission reliability and increase transmission throughput (Fang Para.[0006]).
Re claim 11:
Chitrakar discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is comprised in the wireless network and associated to the device and the set of nodes (Figure 8 and Figure 10A).
Re claim 12:
Chitrakar discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the device and the set of nodes are configured to signal their multi-link multi-node capabilities to other devices and nodes in the wireless network (Para.[0109] Unified signaling that can support different architectures & different usages is proposed. FIG. 15 depicts an illustration of a Multi-link element 1500 configured for unified signalling in accordance with various embodiments. The Multi-link element 1500 comprises an Element ID field, a Length field, an Element ID extension field, a Type field 1502, a Common Information field 1504 and one or more Per-link information field 1506 and Para.[0110] Common Information field 1504 comprises a Common Control field 1508, a Host Link ID field 1510, a MLD MAC Address field, Multi-link Capabilities field and a SSID field. The Common Control field 1508 comprises a Host Link ID Present field, MLD MAC Address Present field, Multi-link Capabilities Present field, SSID Present field and Number of Per-link Information field 1512).
Re claim 13:
Chitrakar discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein one or more of: the device comprises a station, STA; the set of nodes comprise access points, AP; and the wireless network is configured for Wi-Fi (Figure 8 and Figure 10A and Para.[0002] In the standardization of next generation wireless local area network (WLAN), a new radio access technology having backward compatibilities with IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac/ax technologies has been discussed in the IEEE 802.11 Working Group and is named 802.11be Extremely High Throughput (EHT) WLAN ).
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 12.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 30: Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 39: Claim 39 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 12.
Re claim 40: Claim 40 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Claim(s) 4,5,19,20,32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar (US 20230232315) in view of Fang (US 20250267743) as applied to claims 2,3,17,18,30, and 31 above, and further in view of Takinami (US 20190246429).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Chitrakar in view of Fang meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the system according to claim 3, wherein the mobility operations comprise handover between nodes in the set of nodes.
Takinami discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the mobility operations comprise handover between nodes in the set of nodes (Para.[0116] According to the embodiment described above, the data link that the mobile station 100 uses is selected from among the plurality of radio links already established between the mobile station 100 and the plurality of base stations 102. This makes it possible to shorten the time it takes for the mobile station 100 to switch from connecting to one base station 102 to connecting to another (i.e. to perform a handover), thus making it possible to reduce the occurrence of a communication disconnect that is entailed by a handover.).
Chitrakar and Takinami are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include handover between nodes as taught by Takinami in order to reduce occurrences of communication disconnect (Takinami Para.0010]).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Chitrakar in view of Fang meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose the system according to claim 2, wherein the critical time requirements comprise hard time requirements for enabling a seamless handover between nodes in the set of nodes.
Takinami discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the critical time requirements comprise hard time requirements for enabling a seamless handover between nodes in the set of nodes (Para.[0171] By applying the embodiment including the aforementioned modification as a non-limiting example to a millimeter-wave high-speed wireless LAN system, low-delay and high-quality radio transmission of high-definition video data can be achieved).
Chitrakar and Takinami are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitrakar to include handover between nodes as taught by Takinami in order to reduce occurrences of communication disconnect (Takinami Para.0010]).
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 32: Claim 32 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 33: Claim 33 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,2,4,5,11-13,16,17,19,20,26,27,29,30,32,33,39, and 40 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (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 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights