DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 9, 2026, was filed before the mailing of a final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments, filed on June 30, 2026, with respect to objections to claims 2-3, 5, 11-13, 15, 18, and 21-23 have been considered and are persuasive. Objections to claims 2-3, 5, 11-13, 15, 18, and 21-23 have been withdrawn.
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 16 and 18 have been considered and are persuasive. Rejections of claims 16 and 18 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of the new claims 26-50, as amended, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner has applied Kishida ‘519 (US 2026/0006519), Chitrakar ‘003 (US 2025/0275003), Holtzman ‘685 (US 6,788,685), Cao ‘329 (US 2014/0256329), Ryoo ‘483 (US 2019/0191483), and Yao ‘867 (US 2018/0287867), to clearly teach the amended limitations in claims 26-50.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 26, 31-33, 35, 42-43, and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 (line 8), claim 35 (line 8), claim 42 (line 10), and claim 47 (line 9) recite “MAC” and it should be - - medium access control (MAC) - -, for the term to be defined at its first use.
Claim 31 (line 1), claim 32 (line 2-3), and claim 33 (line 2) recite “the group of AP MLDs” and it should be - - a group of AP MLDs - -, as “the group of AP MLDs” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 35 (line 7), claim 42 (line 7), and claim 47 (line 6) recite “the group of non-collocated AP MLDs” and it should be - - a group of non-collocated AP MLDs - -, as “the group of non-collocated AP MLDs” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 42 (line 11) and claim 47 (line 10) recite “the MAC address for the non-AP MLD” and it should be - - a MAC address for the non-AP MLD - -, as “the MAC address for the non-AP MLD” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 42 (line 12) and claim 47 (line 11) recite “the MAC address for the target AP MLD” and it should be - - a MAC address for the target AP MLD - -, as “the MAC address for the target AP MLD” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 43 (line 4) recites “the MAC request frame” and it should be - - a MAC request frame - -, as “the MAC request frame” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 42-50 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.
Claim 42 (lines 13-14) recites limitation "send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning.” “The one or more response frames” in line 13 is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear how “the one or more response frames” in line 13 relates to “one or more response frames” in line 14. For purposes of examination, the examiner’s interpretation of “send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning” is “send the one or more request frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning.” Whether the intent is for the limitation ““send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning” to be “send the one or more request frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning,” or not, correction is required for claim 42 to be definite.
Claim 47 (lines 12-13) recites limitation "send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning.” “The one or more response frames” in line 12 is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear how “the one or more response frames” in line 12 relates to “one or more response frames” in line 13. For purposes of examination, the examiner’s interpretation of “send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning” is “send the one or more request frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning.” Whether the intent is for the limitation ““send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning” to be “send the one or more request frames to the first AP MLD; and receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning,” or not, correction is required for claim 47 to be definite.
Claims 43-46 and 48-50 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 26-28, 30-31, 35-37, 39-40, 42, and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim ‘839 (US 2024/0056839, “Kim ‘839”), in view of Chu ‘509 (US 2025/0254509, “Chu ‘509”; Chu ‘509 was filed on April 24, 2025, claiming priority to US provisional application 63/383047 filed on November 9, 2022, and thus Chu ‘509 was effectively filed before the claimed invention; further, the US provisional application 63/383047 fully supports all citations made in the rejection from the Chu ‘509 reference), further in view of Kishida ‘519 (US 2026/0006519, “Kishida ‘519”), and further in view of Chitrakar ‘003 (US 2025/0275003, “Chitrakar ‘003”).
Regarding claim 26, Kim ‘839 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1, para 50-59; first STA 110) comprising:
a memory; and circuitry of a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD), coupled with the memory to (FIGS. 1-2, para 9-17, 50-59, 68-79, and 317; the first STA is an AP MLD that includes a memory that stores instructions and a processor circuit that executes the instructions):
receive one or more request frames from a non-AP MLD to transition links (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links),
parse the one or more request frames to determine a MAC address for the non-AP MLD, and to determine links to add and delete (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the request frame includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration a Request Type field that indicates whether the links are to be added, deleted, or modified; further, MAC request frame includes a per-STA profile subelement in the ML element, where the subelement indicates link information),
wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a multi-link element with a common info field (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration includes a Multi-Link element, where the Multi-Link element includes a Common Info field),
wherein the common info field comprises a MLD MAC address field with the MAC address for the non-AP MLD (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address, where the MLD MAC address includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs);
generate one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning; and send the one or more response frames to the non-AP MLD (para 246; non-AP MLD sends a request frame that indicates the new link to add; AP MLD responds to the request with a response message that includes the new link ID).
However, Kim ‘839 does not specifically disclose a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD) affiliated with a group of non-collocated AP MLDs, wherein the target AP MLD is affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs.
Chu ‘509 teaches a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD) affiliated with a group of non-collocated AP MLDs (para 3, 20, and 22; a seamless mobile domain (SMD) for seamless roaming of a non-AP MLD, also referred to as a distributed AP MLD, includes multiple AP MLDs positioned in different physical locations; the multiple AP MLDs are affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD; the SMD/distributed AP MLD read on a non-collocated AP MLD),
wherein the target AP MLD is affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs (para 3, 20, and 22; a seamless mobile domain (SMD) for seamless roaming of a non-AP MLD, also referred to as a distributed AP MLD, includes multiple AP MLDs positioned in different physical locations; the multiple AP MLDs are affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD; the SMD/distributed AP MLD read on a non-collocated AP MLD; an AP MLD that the non-AP MLD roams to reads on the target AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim ‘839’s apparatus that sends a response frame to a non-AP MLD, to include Chu ‘509’s multiple AP MLDs affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for seamless roaming in an area that includes a number of different affiliated AP MLDs (Chu ‘509, para 20).
Although Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 discloses receive one or more request frames from a non-AP MLD to transition links, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 does not specifically disclose to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD.
Kishida ‘519 teaches to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD (FIGS. 1 and 5, para 5, 42, 47, and 52; in a handover process, a multi-link terminal transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839 and Chu ‘509, to include Kishida ‘519’s multi-link terminal that transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve stable handover (Kishida ‘519, para 5-6).
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 and Kishida ‘519 does not specifically disclose determine a MAC address for the target AP MLD, wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD.
Chitrakar ‘003 teaches determine a MAC address for the target AP MLD (para 138; Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address),
wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD (para 138; Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, and Kishida ‘519, to include Chitrakar ‘003’s Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address. The motivation for doing so would have been a proper request for sensing by proxy (SBP) procedure (Chitrakar ‘003, para 2-4).
Regarding claim 35, Kim ‘839 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor of a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD), cause the processor to perform operations to (FIGS. 1-2, para 9-17, 50-59, 68-79, and 317; the first STA is an AP MLD that includes a memory that stores instructions and a processor circuit that executes the instructions):
receive one or more request frames from a non-AP MLD to transition links (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links),
parse the one or more request frames to determine a MAC address for the non-AP MLD, and to determine links to add and delete (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the request frame includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration a Request Type field that indicates whether the links are to be added, deleted, or modified; further, MAC request frame includes a per-STA profile subelement in the ML element, where the subelement indicates link information),
wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a multi-link element with a common info field (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration includes a Multi-Link element, where the Multi-Link element includes a Common Info field),
wherein the common info field comprises a MLD MAC address field with the MAC address for the non-AP MLD (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address, where the MLD MAC address includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs);
generate one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning; and send the one or more response frames to the non-AP MLD (para 246; non-AP MLD sends a request frame that indicates the new link to add; AP MLD responds to the request with a response message that includes the new link ID).
However, Kim ‘839 does not specifically disclose a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD) affiliated with a group of AP MLDs, wherein the target AP MLD and the non-AP MLD are affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs.
Chu ‘509 teaches a first access point (AP) multilink device (MLD) affiliated with a group of AP MLDs (para 3, 20, and 22; a seamless mobile domain (SMD) for seamless roaming of a non-AP MLD, also referred to as a distributed AP MLD, includes multiple AP MLDs positioned in different physical locations; the multiple AP MLDs are affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD; the SMD/distributed AP MLD read on a non-collocated AP MLD),
wherein the target AP MLD and the non-AP MLD are affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs (para 3, 20, and 22; a seamless mobile domain (SMD) for seamless roaming of a non-AP MLD, also referred to as a distributed AP MLD, includes multiple AP MLDs positioned in different physical locations; the multiple AP MLDs are affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD; the SMD/distributed AP MLD read on a non-collocated AP MLD; an AP MLD that the non-AP MLD roams to reads on the target AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim ‘839’s apparatus that sends a response frame to a non-AP MLD, to include Chu ‘509’s multiple AP MLDs affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for seamless roaming in an area that includes a number of different affiliated AP MLDs (Chu ‘509, para 20).
Although Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 discloses receive one or more request frames from a non-AP MLD to transition links, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 does not specifically disclose to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD.
Kishida ‘519 teaches to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD (FIGS. 1 and 5, para 5, 42, 47, and 52; in a handover process, a multi-link terminal transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839 and Chu ‘509, to include Kishida ‘519’s multi-link terminal that transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve stable handover (Kishida ‘519, para 5-6).
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 and Kishida ‘519 does not specifically disclose determine a MAC address for the target AP MLD determine a MAC address for the target AP MLD, wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD.
Chitrakar ‘003 teaches determine a MAC address for the target AP MLD (para 138; Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address),
wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD (para 138; Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, and Kishida ‘519, to include Chitrakar ‘003’s Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address. The motivation for doing so would have been a proper request for sensing by proxy (SBP) procedure (Chitrakar ‘003, para 2-4).
Regarding claims 42 and 47, Kim ‘839 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1, para 50-59; second STA 120) comprising:
a memory; and circuitry of a non-access point (AP) multilink device (MLD) coupled with the memory (FIGS. 1-2, para 9-17, 50-59, 68-79, and 317; the second STA is a non-AP MLD that includes a memory that stores instructions and a processor circuit that executes the instructions) to:
generate one or more request frames for a first AP MLD to transition links (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links; thus, non-AP MLD generates the request frame for ML reconfiguration),
wherein the one or more request frames identify links to add and delete (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the request frame includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration a Request Type field that indicates whether the links are to be added, deleted, or modified; further, MAC request frame includes a per-STA profile subelement in the ML element, where the subelement indicates link information),
wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a multi-link element with a common info field (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration includes a Multi-Link element, where the Multi-Link element includes a Common Info field),
wherein the common info field comprises a MLD MAC address field with the MAC address for the non-AP MLD (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; the Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address, where the MLD MAC address includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs);
send the one or more response frames to the first AP MLD (para 246; non-AP MLD sends a request frame that indicates the new link to add; AP MLD responds to the request with a response message that includes the new link ID; examiner notes that claims 42 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and that the preceding limitation is, for purposes of examination, interpreted as “send the one or more request frames to the first AP MLD”); and
receive one or more response frames to indicate success in aspects of transitioning (para 246; non-AP MLD sends a request frame that indicates the new link to add; AP MLD responds to the request with a response message that includes the new link ID).
However, Kim ‘839 does not specifically disclose wherein the target AP MLD is affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs.
Chu ‘509 teaches wherein the target AP MLD is affiliated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs (para 3, 20, and 22; a seamless mobile domain (SMD) for seamless roaming of a non-AP MLD, also referred to as a distributed AP MLD, includes multiple AP MLDs positioned in different physical locations; the multiple AP MLDs are affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD; the SMD/distributed AP MLD read on a non-collocated AP MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim ‘839’s apparatus that receives a response frame to indicate success in aspects of transitioning, to include Chu ‘509’s multiple AP MLDs affiliated with the SMD/distributed AP MLD. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for seamless roaming in an area that includes a number of different affiliated AP MLDs (Chu ‘509, para 20).
Although Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 discloses generate one or more request frames for a first AP MLD to transition links, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 does not specifically disclose to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD.
Kishida ‘519 teaches to transition links from the first AP MLD to a target AP MLD (FIGS. 1 and 5, para 5, 42, 47, and 52; in a handover process, a multi-link terminal transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839 and Chu ‘509, to include Kishida ‘519’s multi-link terminal that transitions links from a first multi-link access point to a second multi-link access point. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve stable handover (Kishida ‘519, para 5-6).
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509 and Kishida ‘519 does not specifically disclose wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD.
Chitrakar ‘003 teaches wherein the common info field comprises an AP MLD field with the MAC address for the target AP MLD (para 138; Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, and Kishida ‘519, to include Chitrakar ‘003’s Common Info field includes a MLD MAC address subfield carrying an AP MLD’s MLD MAC address. The motivation for doing so would have been a proper request for sensing by proxy (SBP) procedure (Chitrakar ‘003, para 2-4).
Regarding claims 27, 36, 44, and 48, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, 35, 42, and 47, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘839 teaches wherein a respective frame of the one or more request frames includes a flag in a frame body of the respective frame to add links associated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links; the request includes a Request Type field that indicates whether the request is to add, to delete, or to modify the link).
Regarding claims 28, 37, 45, and 49, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, 35, 42, and 47, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘839 teaches wherein a respective frame of the one or more request frames includes a flag in a frame body of the respective frame to delete links associated with the group of non-collocated AP MLDs (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links; the request includes a Request Type field that indicates whether the request is to add, to delete, or to modify the link).
Regarding claims 30, 39, and 46, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, 35, and 42, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘839 teaches wherein the aspects of transitioning comprise adding links, deleting links, or a combination thereof (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 9-17, 99, 176-220, 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the ML reconfiguration is addition, deletion, or modification of links; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claims 31 and 40, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26 and 35, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘839 teaches wherein the group of AP MLDs belong to the same extended service set (ESS) (FIG. 2, para 71-79; a group of APs belong to the same ESS).
11. Claims 29, 38, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘839, in view of Chu ‘509, further in view of Kishida ‘519, further in view of Chitrakar ‘003, further in view of Holtzman ‘685 (US 6,788,685, “Holtzman ‘685”), and further in view of Cao ‘329 (US 2014/0256329 , “Cao ‘329”).
Regarding claims 29, 38, and 50, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, 35, and 47, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘839 teaches wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a category field, and one or more additional fields (FIGS. 13-18 and 23, para 176-220 and 252-266; AP MLD receives and decodes a MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration from a non-AP MLD, where the request frame includes the MAC address for the non-AP MLD and its STAs; the MAC request frame for ML reconfiguration a Request Type field that indicates whether the links are to be added, deleted, or modified; the MAC request frame includes multiple additional fields).
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a protected action field.
Holtzman ‘685 teaches wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a protected action field (col. 3:61-67 and 4:1-9; a frame includes CRC bits for error correction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003, to include Holtzman ‘685’s CRC bits for error correction. The motivation for doing so would have been to address power control symbol susceptibility to added noise (Holtzman ‘685, col. 3:10-25).
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a dialog taken field.
Cao ‘329 teaches wherein at least one of the one or more request frames comprises a dialog taken field (para 118-122; a message includes a flag that indicates whether the message is a request, response, or ACK).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, Chitrakar ‘003, and Holtzman ‘685, to include Cao ‘329’s flag that indicates whether the message is a request, response, or ACK. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance network capacity (Cao ‘329, para 8-9).
12. Claims 32 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘839, in view of Chu ‘509, further in view of Kishida ‘519, further in view of Chitrakar ‘003, and further in view of Ryoo ‘483 (US 2019/0191483, “Ryoo ‘483”).
Regarding claims 32 and 41, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26 and 35, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose wherein a common security key is established for communications from the non-AP MLD to each AP MLD in the group of AP MLDs.
Ryoo ‘483 teaches wherein a common security key is established for communications from the non-AP MLD to each AP MLD in the group of AP MLDs (para 286; a common security key is used for terminal communications with base stations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003, to include Ryoo ‘483’s common security key. The motivation for doing so would have been to address deteriorated power consumption of a terminal (Ryoo ‘483, para 7).
13. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘839, in view of Chu ‘509, further in view of Kishida ‘519, further in view of Chitrakar ‘003, and further in view of Yao ‘867 (US 2018/0287867, “Yao ‘867”).
Regarding claim 33, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, as outlined above.
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose wherein a different security key is established for each AP MLD of the group of AP MLDs for communications from the non-AP MLD.
Yao ‘867 teaches wherein a different security key is established for each AP MLD of the group of AP MLDs for communications from the non-AP MLD (para 36; wireless device communicates with different access point having different security keys).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003, to include Yao ‘867’s different security keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a reduced data transmission reliability (Yao ‘867, para 6).
14. Claims 34 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘839, in view of Chu ‘509, further in view of Kishida ‘519, further in view of Chitrakar ‘003, and further in view of Shafin ‘404 (US 2023/0088404, “Shafin ‘404”).
Regarding claim 34, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 26, as outlined above.
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose the circuitry comprising baseband processing circuitry and further comprising a radio coupled with the baseband processing circuitry, and one or more antennas coupled with the radio to receive the one or more request frames.
Shafin ‘404 teaches the circuitry comprising baseband processing circuitry and further comprising a radio coupled with the baseband processing circuitry, and one or more antennas coupled with the radio to receive the one or more request frames (FIG. 2B, para 53-56; RF transceiver receives a RF signal from an antenna; the RF transceiver is coupled with a processor that processes a baseband signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003, to include Shafin ‘404’s RF transceiver coupled with a processor that processes a baseband signal. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance channel quality measurements on links of an MLD in a WLAN (Shafin ‘404, para 8).
Regarding claim 43, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 42, as outlined above.
However, Kim ‘839 in combination with Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003 does not specifically disclose wherein the circuitry comprises baseband processing circuitry and further comprising a radio coupled with the baseband processing circuitry, and one or more antennas coupled with the radio to transmit the MAC request frame.
Shafin ‘404 teaches wherein the circuitry comprises baseband processing circuitry and further comprising a radio coupled with the baseband processing circuitry, and one or more antennas coupled with the radio to transmit the MAC request frame (FIG. 2A, para 45-49; RF transceiver transmits a RF signal to an antenna; the RF transceiver is coupled with a processor that processes a baseband signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Kim ‘839, Chu ‘509, Kishida ‘519, and Chitrakar ‘003, to include Shafin ‘404’s RF transceiver coupled with a processor that processes a baseband signal. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance channel quality measurements on links of an MLD in a WLAN (Shafin ‘404, para 8).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.0.
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 NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571)272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
