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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 24, 25 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.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt et al. “AP MLD Beaconing and Discovery”, Apple Inc, June 8, 2020, IEEE 802.11-20/865r0 in view of Kenny (US-20160050623); Seok, Yongho. “Multi-Link BSS Parameter Update.” IEEE 802.11-20/0337r0, IEEE 802.11 Working Group, 13 Mar. 2020; Naribole et al. “MLO Constraint Indication and Operating Mode”, Samsung, March 15, 2020, IEEE 802.11-20/0226r4.
As to claim 1, 24, 25: Kneckt teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a non-access point multi-link device (non-AP MLD) from an AP MLD, a multi-link element (slide12 1. A single Beacon carries a complete set of parameters of other APs in the same AP MLD, 2. A single Beacon carries a partial set of parameters of other APs in the same AP MLD, 3. A single Beacon carries basic info (e.g. RNR) and Check Beacon of other APs in the same AP MLD) in a beacon frame through a primary link (slide 15, 16, 18 beacon from AP received by non-AP MLD); and performing, by the non-AP MLD, a multi-link operation based on the multi-link element (slide 6 STA needs to discover at least one AP in AP MLD to initiate authentication and MLD Setup; slide 7 Once a Non-AP MLD discovers an AP MLD on one link, it may transmit a unicast ML Query management frame; slide 20 STA may query AP parameters in other links after the MLD Setup; slide 21The Check Beacon indicates whether STA should obtain the link specific AP parameters), wherein the AP MLD includes a first AP operating on the primary link and a second AP operating on a nonprimary link (slide 5, 6 multiple APs over different links), wherein the multi-link element included in the beacon frame includes information related to a specific update for the first AP of the AP MLD (slide 13 Check Beacon is one octet long field that is updated if a critical link specific AP parameter value changes).
Kneckt may not explicitly teach wherein the beacon frame is received only on the primary link. However, Kenny teaches wherein the beacon frame is received only on the primary link ([0022] In example embodiments, if the AP 102 transmits a beacon only on a primary channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement beacons only on primary link, taught by Kenny, into the beacon, taught by Kneckt, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption and overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kneckt and Kenny in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Kneckt may not explicitly teach wherein at least one event including an event related a channel switch is classified as the specific update, and the channel switch includes switching from an initial operating channel to a target operating channel by an AP affiliated with the AP MLD. However, Seok teaches wherein at least one event including an event related a channel switch is classified as the specific update (slide 8: events classified as critical updates), and the channel switch includes switching from an initial operating channel to a target operating channel by an AP affiliated with the AP MLD (slide 6, 13, 14: STA2 in AP MLD switches from Channel 1 to Channel 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel switching, taught by Seok, into the communication system, taught by Kneckt, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and switch channels to receive information. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kneckt and Seok in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Kneckt may not explicitly teach and wherein a change of an operating channel for at least one of the primary link or the nonprimary link is supported for the AP MLD. However, Naribole teaches and wherein a change of an operating channel for at least one of the primary link or the nonprimary link is supported for the AP MLD (slide 17 AP MLD may switch the channel of a link over time to a new spectrum).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel switching, taught by Naribole, into the AP MLD, taught by Kneckt, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and avoid interference. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kneckt and Naribole in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 19, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt et al. “AP MLD Beaconing and Discovery”, Apple Inc, June 8, 2020, IEEE 802.11-20/865r0 in view of Kenny (US-20160050623), Seok, Naribole.
As to claim 19: Kneckt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: wherein the multi-link element included in the beacon frame further includes information related to the primary link and the nonprimary link (slide 5, slide 12 A single Beacon carries a complete set of parameters of other APs in the same AP MLD; slide 11 RNR includes all AP in other channels that belong to the same AP MLD, capabilities and operations of the reporting AP).
As to claim 20: Kneckt teaches the method of claim 19, wherein: the primary link and the nonprimary link are related to a nonsimultaneous transmit and receive (NSTR) AP MLD operation (slide 16 A STA MLD have STAs in power save and it may receive Beacons only from a single AP).
As to claim 21: Kneckt teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the beacon frame further includes information related to a critical update for the second AP of the AP MLD (slide 13 Check Beacon is one octet long field that is updated if a critical link specific AP parameter value changes; slide 5, slide 7, slide 11: AP2 ).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt, Kenny (US-20160050623), Seok, Naribole in view of Chitrakar et al. “Multi-link Element format”, Panasonic Corporation, May 2020, IEEE 802.11-20/0772r0
As to claim 22: Kneckt teaches the method of claim 1.
Kneckt may not explicitly teach wherein: the beacon frame further includes information related to a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping. However, Chitraker teaches wherein: the beacon frame further includes information related to a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping (slide 5, 6 TID-to-link mapping).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement TID-to-link mapping, taught by Chitraker, into the WiFi communication, taught by Kneckt, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable multiple simultaneous connections. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chitraker and Kneckt in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt, Kenny (US-20160050623), Seok, Naribole in view of Patil (US-20190158413).
As to claim 23: Kneckt teaches the method of claim 1.
Kneckt may not explicitly teach wherein: the beacon frame further includes information related to an enablement or a disablement of at least one link. Patil teaches may not explicitly teach However, Patil teaches wherein: the beacon frame further includes information related to an enablement or a disablement of at least one link ([0004] Each AP periodically broadcasts beacon frames on the primary link to enable any STAs within wireless range of the AP to establish and maintain a communication link with the WLAN).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement enabling WLAN links, taught by Patil, into the beacon, taught by Kneckt, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable user communication. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Kneckt and Patil in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights