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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. New Claims 21-38 have been added in this amendment. Claims 21-38 are still pending in this application, with claims 21,32 and 39 being independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 21,29,32 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21,32 and 39, the claims are not identical and may cause a restriction in new office actions
In claim 29, line 2, “the link associated with a second non-AP STA” is not clear and fails to tie second non-AP to the non-AP STA MLD
In claim 32, line 16, “a bandwidth of an” should be “the bandwidth of an”
In claim 32, line 20, “verify that a nonprimary” is not clear and fails to explain how operating class indicates a nonprimary 20MHz channel
In claim 39, line 15, “a bandwidth of an” should be “the bandwidth of an”
In claim 39, line 19, “verify that a nonprimary” is not clear and fails to explain how operating class indicates a nonprimary 20MHz channel
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "in response to a determination" is unclear as to what is a result of determination and tie the result to next steps of the claimed invention. The claim further recites the limitation "in response to a mismatch" is unclear as to which verification fails out of four verification steps.
Claims 22-31 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 21.
Claims 33-38 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 32.
Claim 40 is rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 39.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 21-23,25,28-34,36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2021/0014911 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Patil”) in view of Ouchi (US 2023/0309076 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Ouchi”) and further in view of Seok et al. (US 2021/0368322 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Seok”) and further in view of Xia et al. (US 2024/0259119 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xia”).
Regarding claims 21,32 and 39, Patil discloses an apparatus a non-access point (AP) station (STA)(non-AP STA) affiliated with a non-AP multi-link device (MLD)(non-AP MLD) (Patil Fig.1,9A Para[0123] A Non-AP MLD) and AP MLD (Patil Fig.1,9A Para[0123] An AP MLD) to: decode, a physical (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU) from an access point (AP) of an AP affiliated with an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD)(AP MLD), the non-AP STA associated with the AP MLD (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0123-128,0161] A frame (i.e. PPDU) is received from the AP MLD), the PPDU comprising operating channel information for the AP (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0123-128] The frame contains operating channel information), the operating channel information comprising a basic multi-link element, the basic multi-link element comprising, for the AP, a primary channel number field, the primary channel number field indicating a first primary channel (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0123-128,0154] The frame contains first channel (i.e. primary) information), a secondary channel offset field, the secondary channel offset field indicating a first nonprimary 20 MHz channel (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0085,0123-128,0154] The 20 MHz channel information), a bandwidth of an operating class indicated in an operating class field (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0161-162,0167] The frame contains operating class for bandwidth), and a frequency segment 1 channel number field, the frequency segment 1 channel number field indicating a first frequency segment 1 channel number (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0161-162,0167-169] The frame contains link information (i.e. channel number)).
Patil does not explicitly disclose determine to verify the operating channel information for the AP, if an operating channel validation (OCV) capability (OCVC) is not present in the non-AP MLD or if the AP MLD does not advertise OCVC, and a beacon protection is enabled;
However, Ouchi from the same field of invention discloses determine to verify the operating channel information for the AP, if an operating channel validation (OCV) capability (OCVC) is not present in the non-AP MLD or if the AP MLD does not advertise OCVC (Ouchi Para[0048-49] The BQR (i.e. channel validation) supported or not. The capabilities information (i.e. operating channel) is provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Patil to have the feature of “determine to verify the operating channel information for the AP, if an operating channel validation (OCV) capability (OCVC) is not present in the non-AP MLD or if the AP MLD does not advertise OCVC” as taught by Ouchi. The motivation would have been to efficiently collecting information for a resource to avoid collision (Ouchi Para[0005]).
Patil in view of Ouchi does not explicitly disclose a beacon protection is enabled.
However, Seok from the same field of invention discloses a beacon protection is enabled (Seok Para[0067] The management frame (i.e. beacon) protection is enabled and key for each link is provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Patil and Ouchi to have the feature of “a beacon protection is enabled” as taught by Seok. The motivation would have been to have modified FILS discovery frame to indicate MLD level SSID (Seok Para[0004]).
Patil in view of Ouchi and Seok does not explicitly disclose in response to a determination to verify the operating channel information for the AP, verify that a maximum bandwidth used by the non-AP STA is no greater than the bandwidth of the operating class indicated in the operating class field, verify that a second primary channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first primary channel indicated by the primary channel number field, verify that a second nonprimary 20 MHz channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first nonprimary 20 MHz channel indicated by the operating class indicated in the operating class field, and verify that a first frequency segment 1 channel number used by the STA for the AP matches a second frequency segment 1 channel number indicated in the frequency segment 1 channel number field; and in response to a mismatch in the verifying, disassociate from the AP MLD.
However, Xia from the same field of invention discloses in response to a determination to verify the operating channel information for the AP (Xia Fig.7 Para[0225] The result of action frame to check parameters), verify that a maximum bandwidth used by the non-AP STA is no greater than the bandwidth of the operating class indicated in the operating class field (Xia Para[0132,0138,022-226] The bandwidth check), verify that a second primary channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first primary channel indicated by the primary channel number field (Xia Para[0132,0138,022-226] The channel number check), verify that a second nonprimary 20 MHz channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first nonprimary 20 MHz channel indicated by the operating class indicated in the operating class field (Xia Para[0132,0138,022-226] The bandwidth is 20 MHz), and verify that a first frequency segment 1 channel number used by the STA for the AP matches a second frequency segment 1 channel number indicated in the frequency segment 1 channel number field (Xia Para[0132,0138,022-226] The channel number check); and in response to a mismatch in the verifying, disassociate from the AP MLD (Xia Para[0132,0138,022-226] The channel switch is performed due to ranking).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Patil, Ouchi and Seok to have the feature of “in response to a determination to verify the operating channel information for the AP, verify that a maximum bandwidth used by the non-AP STA is no greater than the bandwidth of the operating class indicated in the operating class field, verify that a second primary channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first primary channel indicated by the primary channel number field, verify that a second nonprimary 20 MHz channel used by the non-AP STA for the AP matches the first nonprimary 20 MHz channel indicated by the operating class indicated in the operating class field, and verify that a first frequency segment 1 channel number used by the STA for the AP matches a second frequency segment 1 channel number indicated in the frequency segment 1 channel number field; and in response to a mismatch in the verifying, disassociate from the AP MLD” as taught by Xia. The motivation would have been to reduce interference and increase throughput (Xia Para[0004]).
Specifically for claims 21 and 39, Patil discloses the non-AP and AP MLDs that includes a processor (Patil Fig.6A,B Para[0105-106] A processor for AP and non-AP MLD) and a memory (Patil Fig.6A,B Para[0105-106] A memory for AP and non-AP MLD).
Regarding claims 22,33 and 40, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the PPDU is a first beacon frame received on a link of the non-AP MLD (Patil Para[0076] A beacon frame with channel information).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the PPDU is a first PPDU, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: decode, from the AP, a second PPDU, the second PPDU comprising an operating class information (OCI) element, the OCI element comprising an operating class field, the operating class field indicating the maximum bandwidth, a primary channel number field, the primary channel number field indicating the first primary channel, and a segment 1 channel number field, the segment 1 channel number field indicating the first frequency segment 1 channel number (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0161-162,0167-169] The frame contains bandwidth, channel number, etc.).
Regarding claims 25 and 36, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the first primary channel is used by the non-AP STA to transmit frames to the AP and to receive frames from the AP (Patil Para[0076] A beacon frame with channel information).
Regarding claim 28, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the PPDU is received on a link of the non-AP STA MLD, the link associated with the non-AP STA (Patil Fig.15 Para[0204] A link for device (i.e. non-AP STA)).
Regarding claim 29, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the non-AP STA is a first non-AP STA, and wherein the PPDU is received on a link of the non-AP STA MLD, the link associated with a second non-AP STA (Patil Fig.15 Para[0204] A multi-link device with multiple links).
Regarding claim 30, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses wherein the PPDU comprises an operating class subfield, the operating class subfield comprising the primary channel number field, the nonprimary 20 MHz channel, the bandwidth of an operating class indicated in the operating class field, and the frequency segment 1 channel number field (Patil Fig.9A,10,11 Para[0161-162,0167-169] The frame contains bandwidth, channel number, etc.).
Regarding claim 31, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil further discloses two or more patch antennas for receiving signaling in accordance with a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) technique (Patil Para[0088,0095,0106] The multiple antennas used for MIMO communication).
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok, Xia and further in view of Chen (CN110831005A, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claims 24 and 35, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein the PPDU is a beacon frame that has been validated using Broadcast/Multicast Integrity Protocol (BIP).
However, Chen from the same field of invention discloses wherein the PPDU is a beacon frame that has been validated using Broadcast/Multicast Integrity Protocol (BIP) (Chen Para[0051] A beacon frame using broadcast protocol containing authentication information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Patil, Ouchi, Seok and Xia to have the feature of “wherein the PPDU is a beacon frame that has been validated using Broadcast/Multicast Integrity Protocol (BIP)” as taught by Chen. The motivation would have been to quickly configure a device (Chen Para[0008]).
Claims 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok, Xia and further in view of Huang (US 2025/0063530 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding claims 26 and 37, Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia discloses the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as explained above for Claim 1. Patil in view of Ouchi, Seok and Xia does not explicitly disclose wherein the AP is a first AP, the PPDU comprises operating channel information for a second AP, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: verify the operating channel information for the second AP.
However, Huang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the AP is a first AP, the PPDU comprises operating channel information for a second AP, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: verify the operating channel information for the second AP (Huang Para[0049] The beacon frame contains neighbor AP (i.e. second) information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Patil, Ouchi, Seok and Xia to have the feature of “wherein the AP is a first AP, the PPDU comprises operating channel information for a second AP, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: verify the operating channel information for the second AP” as taught by Huang. The motivation would have been to improve throughput and reduce power (Huang Para[0004]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights