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 reply with the certified English translation filed 08/06/2026 for the instant application has been acknowledged. Therefore, the benefit accords to the foreign application, KR10-2020-0076041, with filing date 06/22/2020.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 21, and 24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Particularly, claims 1 and 22 are rejected based on Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1), and claims 5 and 24 are rejected based on Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2023/0345362 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claims 5 and 24 recite “wherein the second frame for the multi-link reconfiguration procedure includes a reachability check request frame for checking availability of the second link.” There is no support for a second frame for multi-link reconfiguration procedure to include a reachability check frame. Applicant’s specification discloses in [0111] “When the procedure of exchanging the reachability check request/response frames is successfully completed in the second link, the first MLD and the second MLD may determine that the second link is available. In this case, the first MLD and the second MLD may perform a multi-link (re)configuration procedure for configuring the second link in the first link and/or the second link (S605). In the step S605, a multi-link including the first link and the second link may be configured. The reachability check operation in the second link may be replaced by the multi-link (re)configuration procedure performed in the second link.” In other words, the reachability check request frame is not included in the multi-link reconfiguration because it is (1) transmitted before the multi-link (re)configuration procedure, or (2) replaced by the multi-link (re)configuration procedure.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Huang discloses A method for operating a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) in a wireless local area network, the method comprising (Figs. 1A-1B, [0110]: non-AP MLD communicates with AP MLD in a wireless communications network. Fig. 10, [0257]: MLD may be non-AP MLD comprising a processor 1001 coupled to a transceiver 1005):
receiving, from a first AP of an AP MLD, a first frame including information on a second AP in a first link (Figs. 5A-5C, [0143]: non-AP MLD receives, from AP MLD, first information of link 2 on link 1. Fig. 1B: AP MLD’s AP 1 and non-AP MLD’s STA 1communicate on link 1, and AP MLD’s AP 2 and non-AP MLD’s STA 2communicate on link 2);
Huang does not disclose, but Sahu discloses transmitting, to the second AP, a second frame for a multi-link reconfiguration procedure in a second link (Fig. 4A, [0038]: If probe request 403 requesting to establish a connection in the 5 GHz band is received in the 5 GHz wireless core 320 of the wireless access point 110. [0022]: the probe request is communicated via the 5 GHz frequency band);
receiving, from the second AP, a third frame as a response to the second frame (Fig. 4A, [0038]: the wireless access point 110 … transmits a valid 5 GHz probe response 404 via the wireless core 320 that includes the details of the 5 GHz GO to establish the requested 5 GHz connection. After the client device 211 receives the probe response 404. [0022]: the probe response is communicated via the 5 GHz frequency band);
determining to perform communication with the second AP in the second link, in case that the third frame is received in the second link (Fig. 4A, [0038]: the wireless access point 110 … transmits a valid 5 GHz probe response 404 via the wireless core 320 that includes the details of the 5 GHz GO to establish the requested 5 GHz connection. After the client device 211 receives the probe response 404, the 5 GHz connection is established between the client device 211 and the wireless access point 110. [0022]: the probe response is communicated via the 5 GHz frequency band); and
performing at least one operation for configuring the second link (Fig. 4A, [0038]: After the client device 211 receives the probe response 404, the 5 GHz connection is established between the client device 211 and the wireless access point 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD to send the probe request, as taught by Huang, in the 5 GHz frequency band to request establishment of a connection in the 5 GHz band and receive the probe response including details of the 5 GHz GO to establish the requested 5 GHz connection via the 5 GHz frequency band, as taught by Sahu.
Doing so provides an establishment of a wireless connection between a dual-band client device 211 and wireless access point 110 (Sahu: [0035]).
Claim(s) 2 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2023/0345362 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 22, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang does not disclose, but Kim discloses wherein the first frame includes at least one of information indicating that the second link is available or information on a transmission power in the second link ([0067]: the AP (e.g., AP affiliated with an MLD) may exchange information indicating whether the multi-link operation can be used and information on available link(s) with the STA (e.g., non-AP STA affiliated with an MLD). [0068]: available link(s) of the AP may be configured, and an identifier (ID) may be assigned to each link. Thereafter, in the negotiation procedure and/or change procedure for the multi-link operation, information indicating whether each link is activated may be transmitted, and the information may be expressed using the link ID(s)).
Therefore, 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 first frame, as taught by Huang, to indicate information on available link(s), as taught by Kim.
Doing so provides a negotiation procedure which allows the AP-MLD and the non-AP-MLD to perform multi-link operation (Kim: [0067]).
Claim(s) 3 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2023/0164831 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 23, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang discloses in Figs. 1A-1B that the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD communicate over three links.
Huang does not disclose, but Kim discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
perform a monitoring operation in a third link to receive a beacon frame from a third AP (Fig. 5, [0096]: STA MLD STA1 monitors for beacon in first link);
determine that the third link is in an unreachable state based on the beacon frame not being received in the third link (Fig. 5, [0094], [0096]: STA MLD STA1 does not receive a beacon frame that includes updated parameters in a first link. [0095]: based on not receiving the updated parameters, the STA MLD STA1 uses unchanged parameters to transmit a data frame on link 1 which may fail. [0098]-[0099]: STA MLD STA2 receives a critical update flag and determines that parameters applied to the first link have been changed);
transmit, based on determining that the third link is in the unreachable state, a first probe request frame in the first link (Fig. 5, [0098]-[0099], [0102]: based on determining that parameters applied to the first link have been changed based on the critical update flag, STA MLD transmits a probe request frame in the first link and the second link); and
transmit a second probe request frame in the third link (Fig. 5, [0098]-[0099], [0102]: based on determining that parameters applied to the first link have been changed based on the critical update flag, STA MLD transmits a probe request frame in the first link and the second link),
wherein the first probe request frame includes at least one of information indicating the first link in which the first probe request frame is transmitted or information indicating the third link in which the second probe request frame is transmitted ([0102]: the probe request frame transmitted in the second link includes information requesting transmission of the updated parameters for the first link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD, as taught by Huang, to transmit a probe request in the first link and second link when the STA MLD does not receive a beacon, as taught by Kim.
Doing so allows the STA MLD to request transmission of updated parameters for the first link (Kim: [0102]).
Claim(s) 5 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2023/0345362 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 24, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang does not disclose, but Sahu discloses wherein the second frame for the multi-link reconfiguration procedure includes a reachability check request frame for checking availability of the second link (Fig. 4A, [0036]-[0038]: client device 211 transmits a first probe request. But when the client device 211 does not receive a probe response, the client device 211 transmits a second probe request. If probe request 403 requesting to establish a connection in the 5 GHz band is received in the 5 GHz wireless core 320 of the wireless access point 110. [0022]: the probe request is communicated via the 5 GHz frequency band)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD to send the probe request, as taught by Huang, a subsequent time to request establishment of a connection in the 5 GHz band because no probe response has been received in the 5 GHz band, as taught by Sahu.
Doing so provides an establishment of a wireless connection between a dual-band client device 211 and wireless access point 110 (Sahu: [0035]).
Kim discloses wherein the reachability check request frame has a form of a quality of service (QoS) null frame or a power saving (PS)-Poll frame ([0086]: The STA1 may transmit the PS-Poll frame to the AP1 by performing a channel access procedure in the first link. When the PS-Poll frame is received from the STA1, the AP1 may transmit an ACK frame for the PS-Poll frame to the STA1. Thereafter, a data frame transmission/reception procedure between the AP1 and the STA1 may be performed. The STA3 may transmit the PS-Poll frame to the AP3 by performing a channel access procedure in the third link. When the PS-Poll frame is received from the STA3, the AP3 may transmit an ACK frame for the PS-Poll frame to the STA3. Thereafter, a data frame transmission/reception procedure between the AP3 and the STA3 may be performed)
Therefore, 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 probe request, as taught by Huang and modified by Sahu, to be a PS-Poll frame, as taught by Kim.
Doing so allows a STA of the non-AP MLD to indicate that the STA operates in an awake state so that an AP of the AP-MLD can acknowledge the PS-Poll frame and data frame transmission/reception procedure between the AP and STA can be performed (Kim: [0081], [0086]).
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 25, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang does not disclose, but Patil discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
set up a multi-link with the AP MLD, the second link in an unreachable state being excluded from the multi-link ([0111]: 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. [0145]: the first device D1 and the second device D2 may establish a common BA session together. In some implementations, the first device D1 may indicate that one or more of the communication links are active or enabled (available for communication) or that one or more of the communication links are not active or disabled (not available for communication). In this example, the first device D1 may indicate that each of the first and the second communication links are active and that a third communication link is inactive. For example, while establishing the common BA session, the first device D1 may set a first bit corresponding to the first communication link to 1, a second bit corresponding to the second communication link to 1, and a third bit corresponding to the third communication link to 0. Thus, the common BA session may map TID=4 to the first communication link and the second communication link and not the third communication link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD, as taught by Kim, to establish a common BA session using one or more active/enabled communication links and not using one or more inactive or disabled communication links, as taught by Patil.
Doing so allows the AP MLD and the STA MLD to establish a common BA session with one another for MSDUs (Patil: [0111], [0145]).
Claim(s) 7 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1) and Jeong et al. (US 2004/0137905 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 26, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang does not disclose, but Han discloses wherein the first frame includes at least one of information on a maximum transmission power in the first link, information on a number of repeated transmissions in the first link, information on a maximum transmission power in the second link, information on a number of repeated transmissions in the second link, or combinations thereof (Fig. 1, [0007]: beacon frames are transmitted on channels and indicate maximum power for the channels).
Therefore, 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 first information that may be a check beacon value, as taught by Huang in [0133], to indicate maximum power for the channels the beacons are transmitted on, as taught by Jeong.
Doing so allows the wireless stations in their power control (Jeong: [0007]).
Claim(s) 8 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1), Kim et al. (US 2023/0164831 A1), and Patil et al. (US 2020/0288523 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 23, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang discloses in Figs. 1A-1B that the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD communicate over three links.
Huang does not disclose, but Kim discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
perform a monitoring operation in a third link to receive a beacon frame from a third AP (Fig. 5, [0096]: STA MLD STA1 monitors for beacon in first link);
determine that the third link is in an unreachable state based on the beacon frame not being received in the third link (Fig. 5, [0094], [0096]: STA MLD STA1 does not receive a beacon frame that includes updated parameters in a first link. [0095]: based on not receiving the updated parameters, the STA MLD STA1 uses unchanged parameters to transmit a data frame on link 1 which may fail. [0098]-[0099]: STA MLD STA2 receives a critical update flag and determines that parameters applied to the first link have been changed);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD, as taught by Huang, to determine that a data frame may fail on link 1 due to not having updated parameters of link 1 because the STA MLD does not receive a beacon comprising the updated parameters, as taught by Kim.
Doing so allows the STA MLD to request transmission of updated parameters for the first link (Kim: [0102]).
Huang in view of Kim does not disclose, but Patil discloses perform, based on determining that the third link is in the unreachable state, communication with the AP MLD using a first transmission power in the first link ([0082]: STAs and APs reduce transmission power of a first link to lessen the impact of ACI on a second adjacent link. Fig. 3, [0110]-[0111]: wireless device transmits in link 1 with a reduced transmission power); and
perform communication with the AP MLD using a second transmission power in the third link (Fig. 3, [0110]-[0111]: wireless device detects OBSS transmission on second link and may begin transmitting on the second link when the OBSS transmission stops and the lower power transmission on link 1 is transmitted with a reduced transmission power),
wherein the second transmission power is greater than the first transmission power (Fig. 3, [0110]-[0111]: wireless device transmits in link 1 with a reduced transmission power).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD, as taught by Huang, to transmit on a second link and on a first link, wherein the transmission on the first link includes a reduced transmission power, as taught by Patil.
Doing so provides a method to ameliorate ACI on an adjacent link (Patil: [0082]).
Claim(s) 9 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0046270 A1) in view of Sahu et al. (US 2019/0166636 A1), Kim et al. (US 2023/0164831 A1), and Lin et al. (WO 2021/229257 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 28, Huang in view of Sahu discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 21 as outlined above.
Huang discloses in Figs. 1A-1B that the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD communicate over three links.
Huang does not disclose, but Kim discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
perform a monitoring operation in a third link to receive a beacon frame from a third AP (Fig. 5, [0096]: STA MLD STA1 monitors for beacon in first link);
determine that the third link is in an unreachable state based on the beacon frame not being received in the third link (Fig. 5, [0094], [0096]: STA MLD STA1 does not receive a beacon frame that includes updated parameters in a first link. [0095]: based on not receiving the updated parameters, the STA MLD STA1 uses unchanged parameters to transmit a data frame on link 1 which may fail. [0098]-[0099]: STA MLD STA2 receives a critical update flag and determines that parameters applied to the first link have been changed);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD, as taught by Huang, to determine that a data frame may fail on link 1 due to not having updated parameters of link 1 because the STA MLD does not receive a beacon comprising the updated parameters, as taught by Kim.
Doing so allows the STA MLD to request transmission of updated parameters for the first link (Kim: [0102]).
Huang in view of Kim does not disclose, but Lin discloses perform, based on determining that the third link is in the unreachable state, communication with the AP MLD in the first link without repeated transmissions of a frame ([0003]: if channel is sensed idle, the UE can perform signal transmission); and
perform communication with the AP MLD in the third link by repeatedly transmitting a frame ([0049]: if the channel is sensed busy, the UE can maximally transmit 3 repetitions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the non-AP MLD to use the first and third links, as taught by Huang, when a channel is sensed idle for signal transmission and when a channel is sensed busy for repeated transmission, as taught by Lin.
Doing so solves the issue when a channel is sensed to be not idle and the UE performs PUSCH repetitions (Lin: [0004]-[0006]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights