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 response filed 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10,14,15,21-25,28, and 34-38 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5,11-13,16-20,26,27,29-33,39, and 40 are pending.
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) 1-3,11-13,16-18,26,27,29-31,39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (US 20250267743) in view of Inohiza (US 20230007716).
Re claim 1:
Fang 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. 1):
a device configured to transition between nodes and corresponding coverage areas and perform operations in the wireless network (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));
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 (Para.[0066] In some embodiments, a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110) with multiple radios can operate using multiple channels (or OFDMA channels) in the same frequency band or different bands to establish multi-link (ML) communication with an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122). The non-AP MLD can associate with one or more AP MLDs in the MLD-BSS coverage to establish various ML connections);
the controller being further configured to cause transmission of data over one or both of the first transmission link and the second transmission link (Para.[0070] A selective ML downlink transmission mode may refer to the AP MLD 120 and/or AP MLD 122 that can transmit a downlink PPDU to a non-AP MLD 110 over one link of multiple links);
a same frequency (Para.[0066] In some embodiments, a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110) with multiple radios can operate using multiple channels (or OFDMA channels) in the same frequency band or different bands to establish multi-link (ML) communication with an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122). The non-AP MLD can associate with one or more AP MLDs in the MLD-BSS coverage to establish various ML connections); and
(Para.[0066] In some embodiments, a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110) with multiple radios can operate using multiple channels (or OFDMA channels) in the same frequency band or different bands to establish multi-link (ML) communication with an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122). The non-AP MLD can associate with one or more AP MLDs in the MLD-BSS coverage to establish various ML connections).
Fang does not explicitly disclose a same cell identifier and different cell identifiers.
Inohiza discloses a same cell identifier and different cell identifiers (Para.[0018] In the networks, the communication apparatus 102 may present the same service set identifier (SSID) or different SSIDs. The SSID is an identifier for identifying an AP).
As shown above, Inohiza shows using a same SSID or a different SSID. Inohiza does not explicitly disclose a same cell identifier for a same frequency and a different cell identifier for a second link. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a same cell ID for a same frequency and a different cell id for a second link as obvious variants.
Fang and Inohiza 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 Fang to include same or different cell identifiers as taught by Inohiza in order to improve throughput (Inohiza Para.[0021]).
Re claim 2:
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 toU.S. Application No: 18/004725 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).
Re claim 3:
Fang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the first transmission link is 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 neighbouring node in the set of nodes (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)).
Re claim 11:
Fang 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 (Para.[0065] he infrastructure may include multiple non-AP multi-link devices (MLDs) (e.g. non-AP MLD 110 and non-AP MLD 112). 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). AP MLD 120 and AP MLD 122 may be interconnected via a switch through a distribution system (DS) that can form a MLD-BSS 100 coordinated via a MLD-BSS controller 150).
Re claim 12:
Fang 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.[0141] The STA IND 512 bit-map size can be determined by the default value or changed to the value specified by the EHT Capability information, which can be based on the number of associated non-AP MLDs in MLD BSS and Para.[0160] In other embodiments, a method for multi-link communication includes receiving, by a wireless station, an indication message from a network node indicating that the network node is capable of transmitting information over one or more wireless links).
Re claim 13:
Fang 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 (Para.[0065] he infrastructure may include multiple non-AP multi-link devices (MLDs) (e.g. non-AP MLD 110 and non-AP MLD 112). 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). AP MLD 120 and AP MLD 122 may be interconnected via a switch through a distribution system (DS) that can form a MLD-BSS 100 coordinated via a MLD-BSS controller 150).
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 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
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 31: Claim 31 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
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 Fang in view of Inohiza 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, Fang in view of Inohiza meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Fang 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.).
Fang 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 Fang 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, Fang in view of Inohiza meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Fang 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).
Fang 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 Fang 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 filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends Fang in view of Inohiza does not disclose a same frequency and a small cell identifier being allocated to the set of nodes for the transmission of data in the first transmission link; and different cell identifiers being allocated to a respective node in the set of nodes for the transmission of data in the second transmission link. Applicant’s rationale is Inohiza discloses sending information about a change in a first link via a second link, which is not the same as the claim limitation.
Fang discloses a same frequency (Para.[0066] In some embodiments, a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110) with multiple radios can operate using multiple channels (or OFDMA channels) in the same frequency band or different bands to establish multi-link (ML) communication with an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122). The non-AP MLD can associate with one or more AP MLDs in the MLD-BSS coverage to establish various ML connections); and
(Para.[0066] In some embodiments, a non-AP MLD (e.g., non-AP MLD 110) with multiple radios can operate using multiple channels (or OFDMA channels) in the same frequency band or different bands to establish multi-link (ML) communication with an AP MLD (e.g. AP MLD 122). The non-AP MLD can associate with one or more AP MLDs in the MLD-BSS coverage to establish various ML connections).
Inohiza discloses a same cell identifier and different cell identifiers (Para.[0018] In the networks, the communication apparatus 102 may present the same service set identifier (SSID) or different SSIDs. The SSID is an identifier for identifying an AP).
The combination of Fang in view of Inohiza reads on the limitation as claimed. Fang shows transmission over one or both of a first transmission link and a second transmission. Fang further shows the transmission can be over a same frequency band or different bands. Transmission on a first link can be over one band and transmission over a first and second link can be over a first band and a second band. Fang does not explicitly disclose the cell identifiers. Inohiza is relied upon to show the same or different SSIDs (“cell identifiers”) can be used. Inohiza does not explicitly disclose a same cell identifier for a same frequency and a different cell identifier for a second link. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a same cell ID for a same frequency and a different cell id for a second link as obvious variants. Therefore the combination of Fang in view of Inohiza reads on the limitation as claimed.
“To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art” (MPEP 2144.03 [R-6] C). Applicant has not provided any rationale as to why the obviousness teaching would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Seok (US 20230354015) is further evidence relied upon that shows a cell identifier for a same frequency and different cell identifiers (Para.[0057] In one scenario, the multiple sets of virtual APs corresponding to the multiple bands have the same BSSID sets. And Para.[0066] In another scenario, the multiple set of virtual APs corresponding to the multiple bands have different BSSID sets).
In the remarks, Applicant contends regarding the disclosure of Inohiza that a service set identifier is a different a cell identifier.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification defines a cell identifier as a SSID (Page 14 line 21 “wherein the APs use the same cell identifier (SSID, service set identifier)”).
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 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