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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 14, 21, 22, 24, and 26 have been amended. Claims 6, 18, and 29 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-28, and 30 are pending in this application.
The amendment made to claim 21 has overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 21, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “The Office Action alleges that Sevin discloses ‘receive a first response frame including first information regarding a first set of APs of the plurality of APs, a number of APs of the first set of APs being less than or equal to the number of allowed association links,’ as generally recited by original claim 22. Office Action, p. 7. Claim 22 has been amended to clarify that a second request is transmitted in association with the first information carrying information of less than all APs of the plurality of APs that are requested. The cited portions of Sevin fail to disclose at least these recitations. Indeed, amended claim 22 includes the subject matter of allowable claim 24.
Sevin generally relates to ‘ML beacon frames sent by AP MLD during ML Discovery report the profiles of all the affiliated APs.’ Sevin, Abstract. At the cited portions, Sevin describes that a ‘non-AP MLD 120 requests three links (151, 152, 153) to be established and non-AP MLD 130 also requests three links (161 to 163). AP MLD 110 may accept or refuse the link proposal of non-AP MLDs 120, 130.’ Sevin, [0130]. That is, Sevin merely describes non-AP MLDs 120, 130 requesting links and the AP-MLD subsequently accepting or rejecting the requested links during association. The cited portions are silent regarding transmitting a second request in association with first information that carries less than all requested AP information. Sevin's ML association procedure involves a single ML Association Request and a corresponding ML Association Response - there is no disclosure of a coordinated second request triggered by the first response frame carrying incomplete AP information.”
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “there is no disclosure of a coordinated second request triggered by the first response frame carrying incomplete AP information”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, this argument is rendered moot due to reliance on a different prior to reject the claimed limitation of “transmit, in association with the first information carrying information of less than all APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, a second request”, to which the argument refers, as is shown in the rejection of claim 22 below.
Second Argument
Applicant argues “Accordingly, the cited portions of Sevin do not anticipate at least ‘receiv[ing] an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD,’ as recited by claim 22. Therefore, for at least these reasfons, independent claim 22 is allowable.”
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraphs [0129-130] of Sevin teach three links being requested by the non-AP MLD 120 as well as three links being requested by non-AP MLD 130. The AP MLD 110 may accept or refuse the link proposal of the non-AP MLDs by providing an ML association response based on the ML Association Request. The act of the non-AP MLDs requesting a specific number of association links and the AP MLD deciding whether to accept or refuse each association link request implies that the AP MLD would deny any number of association links greater than it’s allowed number of links. This acts as an indication of the allowed number of association links.
Therefore, Sevin teaches the claimed features of “receiving an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD.”
Third Argument
Applicant argues “The Office Action cites to Huang as allegedly disclosing these features (of previous claim 6). Office Action, p. 9. Huang generally relates to ‘devices related to basic service set (BSS) information spreading indication.’ Huang, Abstract. At the cited portions, Huang describes that ‘due to the size limit of Beacon frame or probe response frame (2304 bytes for non-high throughput (HT) physical layer (PHY) protocol data unit (PPDU)), a transmitted BSSID AP may not be able to include all the nontransmitted BSSID profiles for BSSID belonging to a multiple BSSID set in one Beacon frame or probe response frame.’ Id. at col. 3, lines 26-31. That is, the cited portions merely describe that due to a size of a Beacon frame or probe response frame, all information may not be included for BSSID profiles.
At additional cited portions, Huang describes that ‘the AP can indicate in the probe response frame that another probe response is coming with nontransmitted BSSID profiles or neighbor reports that are not included in the probe response with the indication.’ Id. at col. 3, lines 41-45. The additional cited portions merely describe that the AP can indicate that additional probe responses are coming (e.g., signaling indicating more frames). The cited portions are silent regarding the content of the additional frames or that they correspond to the same original request. For example, although the cited portions of Huang describe that the subsequent probe responses will include nontransmitted profiles or neighbor reports that were not included in the first one, there is no indication that this information is sent based on the original request and the information previously missing in the probe response. That is, there is no coordinated multi- frame sequence tied to an originating request. Furthermore, as amended, independent claim 1 recites that ‘the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP.’ Regarding this limitation - previously recited in canceled claim 6 - the Examiner has not cited any art of record that teaches this specific limitation. Huang's beacon-spreading mechanism, which operates on a predetermined periodic schedule independent of any probe request, does not teach receiving two response frames in association with a single originating request and without any intervening second request. See id. The Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness by citing art that actually teaches or suggests each claimed limitation. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner has failed to meet that burden with respect to this limitation, and no proper art of record teaches or suggests it. Thus, Huang, alone or in combination with Sevin, fails to teach that the second response frame is sent including second information regarding a second set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the second set of APs including at least one AP of the plurality of APs different than all APs of the first set of APs and the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame, wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP," as recited by amended claim 1.
Accordingly, Sevin and Huang, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest ‘the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame, wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP,’ as recited by amended claim 1.”
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “There is no coordinated multi-frame sequence.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Col. 2, lines 26-41 of Huang teach that due to a size limit of a response frame, a transmitted BSSID AP may not include all of the nontransmitted BSSID profiles in one frame. COL. 3, lines 63-67 of Huang further teach that the AP can spread out information of nontransmitted BSSID profiles and neighbor reports over several frames to resolve the issue that all of the information cannot be included in one frame due to the size limit. Col. 3, lines 4-21 further teach that “a transmitted BSSID AP can indicate the number of beacon intervals such that the beacons with target beacon transmission time (TBTT) inside the time period determined by any starting time and the number of beacon intervals will include all the nontransmitted BSSID profiles. Specifically, each nontransmitted BSSID profile will be included in at least one Beacon frame with TBTT inside the time period determined by any starting time and the number of beacon intervals.” This shows that the content of the additional frames can be the nontransmitted profiles of the original request that were not able to be transmitted in the first frame due to the size limitation. It is well known in the art that “the time period determined by any starting time” may be determined by a request.
At least [COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67] of Huang teach a second response is received which contains missing information from the first information and AP set. [COL. 3, lines 63-67] teach that an AP can spread out nontransmitted information over several frames to resolve the issue that all information cannot be included in a single frame due to size limits. This shows that multiple response frames may be transmitted and received without the transmission of a second request.
Therefore, Sevin and Huang teach the limitations ‘the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame, wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP,’ as recited by amended claim 1.”
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11-15, 19-23, 26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevin et al. (US 20240292234), hereinafter Sevin, in view of Huang et al. (US 11160095 B2), hereinafter Huang.
For claim 1,
Sevin teaches a wireless communication device, comprising:
at least one memory ([FIG. 11], memory);
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one processor operable to cause the wireless communication device to ([FIG. 11], processor):
transmit a first request regarding a plurality of access points (APs) affiliated with a first AP multi-link device (MLD) ([FIG. 2], and [0104], ML probe request sent);
receive a first response frame including first information regarding a first set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the first set of APs being less than all APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([FIG. 2], and [0105-0106], ML probe response frame is received which carries profiles for affiliated APs);
Sevin does not explicitly teach receiving a second response frame including second information regarding a second set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MILD, the second set of APs including at least one AP of the plurality of APs different than all APs of the first set of APs and the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame,
wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP.
However, Huang teaches receiving a second response frame including second information regarding a second set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MILD, the second set of APs including at least one AP of the plurality of APs different than all APs of the first set of APs and the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame, ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], second response is received which contains missing information from the first information and AP set),
wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], first and second response frames are received without the transmission of a second request).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the methods of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames (Huang: COL. 3, lines 63-67) and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 7, Sevin and Huang teach claim 1.
Sevin further teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: select a wireless link as having one or more attributes facilitating transmission of response frames to include information regarding multiple APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the first request being transmitted via the wireless link ([0008], APs send beacon frames with multi-link elements for ML discovery of wireless links for transmission).
For claim 8, Sevin and Huang teach claim 7.
Sevin further teaches wherein the one or more attributes comprise at least one of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) rate, a bandwidth, or a number of spatial streams ([0071], attribute of wireless link includes bandwidth).
For claim 9, Sevin and Huang teach claim 1.
Sevin further teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: receive an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD, a number of APs of the plurality of APs the first request is regarding being less than or equal to the number of allowed association links ([0129], AP MLD provides ML association response to accept/deny number of association links, thus providing indication of allowed links).
For claim 11, Sevin and Huang teach claim 1.
Sevin does not explicitly teach , however Huang further teaches wherein the first request comprises a first multi-link (ML)-probe request for information regarding the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the first response frame comprises a first ML- probe response frame, and the second response frame comprises a second ML-probe response frame ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], first request is ML probe request and first and second response frames are ML probe response frames).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 12, Sevin and Huang teach claim 11.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein a first AP transmitting the first ML-probe response frame and the second ML-probe response frame is an AP other than the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD associated with the first request for information, the first AP associated with a transmitted basic service set identification (BSSID) in a multiple BSSID (MBSSID), the first ML-probe response frame including one or more MBSSID elements for a second AP, the second AP being an AP affiliated with the AP MLD other than the first AP transmitting the first ML-probe response frame ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], AP transmits ML probe response frames in response to receiving a first request for information, meaning it is a different AP than the requesting AP).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 13, Sevin and Huang teach claim 11.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein out of band (OOB) information with respect to frequency bands outside of a frequency band through which the first ML-probe response frame and the second ML-probe response frame are received is omitted from the first ML-probe response frame and the second ML-probe response frame ([0035] and [0151], there is one management AP per frequency band, and information is limited to this frequency band and operating channel within the band).
For claim 14,
Sevin teaches a wireless communication device, comprising:
at least one memory ([FIG. 11], memory);
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one processor operable to cause the wireless communication device to([FIG. 11], processor):
receive a first request regarding a plurality of access points (APs) affiliated with a first AP multi-link device (MLD) ([FIG. 2], and [0104], ML probe request received);
transmit a first response frame including first information regarding a first set of APs selected from the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the first set of APs being less than all APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([FIG. 2], and [0105-0106], ML probe response frame is transmitted which carries profiles for affiliated APs).
Sevin does not explicitly teach transmitting a second response frame including second information regarding a second set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the second set of APs including at least one AP of the plurality of APs different than all APs of the first set of APs and the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame,
wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP.
However, Huang teaches transmitting a second response frame including second information regarding a second set of APs of the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the second set of APs including at least one AP of the plurality of APs different than all APs of the first set of APs and the second information including information about the at least one AP responsive to the first request and corresponding to information that was missing from the first information of the first response frame, ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], second response is received which contains missing information from the first information and AP set),
wherein the first response frame and the second response frame are received in association with the first request without transmission of a second request regarding the at least one AP ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], first and second response frames are received without the transmission of a second request).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames (Huang: COL. 3, lines 63-67) and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 15, Sevin and Huang teach claim 14.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: select APs of the first set of APs in association with the information for the plurality of APs that are requested exceeding a size of the first response frame ([COL. 2, lines 26-41] and [COL. 3, lines 39-45], APs indicated as exceeding a size limit of the first response frame in that a second response frame is sent with the missing information).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 19, Sevin and Huang teach claim 14.
Sevin further teaches wherein the first response frame is transmitted in one or more media access control (MAC) management protocol data units (MMPDUs) sized to accommodate AP MLD response frames including information regarding multiple APs ([0014], response frames are a type of management frame, and management frames are transmitted via MMPDUs).
For claim 20, Sevin and Huang teach claim 14.
Sevin further teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: transmit an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD, a number of APs of the plurality of APs selected for including information in the first response frame being less than or equal to the number of allowed association links ([0129], AP MLD provides ML association response to accept/deny number of association links, thus providing indication of allowed links).
For claim 21, Sevin and Huang teach claim 14.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein the first request comprises a first multi-link (ML) probe request for information regarding the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD, the first response frame comprises a first ML- probe response frame, and the second response frame comprises a second ML-probe response frame, and wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to ([COL. 2, lines 26-41], and [COL. 3, lines 39-67], first request is ML probe request and first and second response frames are ML probe response frames):
omit information from the first ML-probe response frame selected from a group consisting of: multiple basic service set identification (MBSSID) elements for the first set of APs when the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD associated with the first request for information include a first AP of the wireless communication device transmitting the first ML-probe response frame, the first AP associated with a transmitted basic service set identification (BSSID) in a MBSSID; MBSSID elements for the first set of APs except for one or more MBSSID elements for a second AP, the second AP being an AP affiliated with the first AP MLD other than the first AP of the wireless communication device transmitting the first ML-probe response frame, when the plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD associated with the first request for information do not include an AP transmitting the first ML-probe response frame, the first AP associated with a BSSID in a MBSSID; and out of band (OOB) information with respect to frequency bands outside of a frequency band through which the first ML-probe response frame and the second ML-probe response frame are receive ([0035] and [0151], there is one management AP per frequency band, and information is limited to this frequency band and operating channel within the 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 modify the method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
For claim 26, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
For claim 30, Sevin and Huang teach claim 26.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches receiving an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD, a number of APs of the plurality of APs the first request is regarding being less than or equal to the number of allowed association links ([0129], AP MLD provides ML association response to accept/deny number of association links, thus providing indication of allowed links).
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 method of Sevin for receiving information in a response frame with the method of Huang for receiving a second response frame containing missing information from the first response frame to handle the size limit restrictions of response frames and ensure all information is transmitted correctly.
Claim(s) 2-5, 25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevin and Huang, and further in view of Faccin (US 20070243888 A1), hereinafter Faccin.
For claim 2, Sevin and Huang teach claim 1.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: responsive to the first information missing information of one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, transmit a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested.
However, Faccin teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: responsive to the first information missing information of one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, transmit a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([FIG. 1] and [0028], “come-back” Probe Request is transmitted as a second request for the missing information in response to information missing from the first information).
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 methods of Sevin and Huang for sending probe requests and receiving probe responses with the method of Faccin for sending a second request for information that was missing from the first response to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
For claim 3, Sevin and Huang, and Faccin teach claim 2.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein the first information included in the first response frame includes one or more indicators for indicating that the first information is missing information of the one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([COL. 3, lines 39-67], indication in first probe response frame that information is missing).
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 method of Sevin for transmitting a second request for additional information with the method of Huang for including in the first response frame an indication that information is missing so a second request can be transmitted to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach and the second request is transmitted in association with the one or more indicators indicating that the first information is missing information of the one or more APs.
However, Faccin further teaches and the second request is transmitted in association with the one or more indicators indicating that the first information is missing information of the one or more APs ([FIG. 1] and [0028], “come-back” Probe Request is transmitted as a second request for the missing information in response to information missing from the first information).
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 method of Sevin and Huang for transmitting a second request for additional information with the method of Faccin for transmitting the second request frame based on an indication of missing information in the first response frame to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
For claim 4, Sevin and Huang and Faccin teach claim 2.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: select, in association with the first information missing information of the one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, the at least one AP as having information missing in the first information received in response to the first request ([COL. 3, lines 39-67], indication in first probe response frame that information is missing from an indicated AP).
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 method of Sevin for transmitting a second request for additional information with the method of Huang for indicating in the first response frame that information from the AP is missing to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach the second request including an indication of the at least one AP.
However, Faccin further teaches the second request including an indication of the at least one AP ([0025], the second request includes a QueryID which is tied to the AP that is missing information from the first request).
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 method of Sevin and Huang for indicating in the first response frame that information from the AP is missing with the method of Faccin for the second request indicating the AP with missing information to ensure that all information is transmitted completely from the correct AP and to increase the speed of the system.
For claim 5, Sevin and Huang, and Faccin teach claim 4.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach, however Faccin further teaches wherein at least one of the first request or the second request includes an indication of APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([0025], the second request includes a QueryID which is tied to the AP that is missing information from the first request).
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 method of Sevin and Huang for sending a request for information with the method of Faccin for sending a second request which includes an indication of the APs so the requests for information are sent to the correct AP of the set of APs and the amount of time and power for obtaining a second response are reduced.
For claim 25, Sevin and Faccin teach claim 22.
Sevin does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: responsive to the first information missing information of a first AP of the plurality of APs that are requested,
transmit a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, the second request including an indication of the first AP.
However, Huang teaches wherein the at least one processor is operable to cause the wireless communication device to: responsive to the first information missing information of a first AP of the plurality of APs that are requested ([COL. 3, lines 39-67], indication in first probe response frame that information is missing),
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 method of Sevin for transmitting requesting and receiving information from an AP with the method of Huang for indicating in the first response frame that information from the AP is missing to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach transmitting a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, the second request including an indication of the first AP.
However, Faccin further teaches transmitting a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, the second request including an indication of the first AP ([FIG. 1], [0028], and [0025], a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs is transmitted, and the second request includes a QueryID which is specific to the AP).
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 method of Sevin and Huang for requesting and receiving information from an AP with the method of Faccin for transmitting a second request including an indication of the first AP to acquire the missing information from the AP to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and the amount of time and power for obtaining a second response are reduced.
For claim 27, Sevin and Huang teach claim 26.
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Huang further teaches transmitting a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([FIG. 1], [0028], and [0025], a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs is transmitted).
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 method of Sevin for requesting and receiving information from an AP with the method of Huang for transmitting a second request including an indication of the first AP to acquire the missing information from the AP to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and the amount of time and power for obtaining a second response are reduced.
Sevin and Huang do not explicitly teach responsive to the first information missing information of one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested.
However, Faccin teaches responsive to the first information missing information of one or more APs of the plurality of APs that are requested ([COL. 3, lines 39-67], indication in first probe response frame that information is missing).
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 method of Sevin and Huang for transmitting first and second requests for information to an AP with the method of Faccin for indicating in the first response frame that information from the AP is missing to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and increase the speed of the system.
For claim 28, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevin in in view of Faccin (US 20070243888 A1), hereinafter Faccin.
For claim 22,
Sevin teaches at least one memory ([FIG. 11], memory);
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory, the at least one processor operable to cause the wireless communication device to ([FIG. 11], processor):
receive an indication of a number of access points (APs) affiliated with a first AP multi-link device (MLD) ([0098], ML beacon frame gives indication of the number of affiliated access points);
receive an indication of a number of allowed association links with respect to the first AP MLD ([0129], AP MLD provides ML association response to accept/deny number of association links, thus providing indication of allowed links);
transmit a first request regarding a plurality of APs affiliated with the first AP MLD ([FIG. 2], and [0104], ML probe request sent); and
receive a first response frame including first information regarding a first set of APs of the plurality of APs, a number of APs of the first set of APs being less than or equal to the number of allowed association links ([0129-0131], ML Association Response sent indicating the number of association links allowed is in response to number of affiliated APs sending requests);
Sevin does not explicitly teach, however Faccin teaches transmit, in association with the first information carrying information of less than all APs of the plurality of APs that are requested, a second request ([FIG. 1], [0028], and [0025], a second request for additional information missing from the first information about APs is transmitted, and the second request includes a QueryID which is specific to the AP).
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 method of Sevin for requesting and receiving information from an AP with the method of Faccin for transmitting a second request including an indication of the first AP to acquire the missing information from the AP to ensure that all information is transmitted completely and the amount of time and power for obtaining a second response are reduced.
For claim 23, Sevin and Faccin teach claim 22.
Sevin further teaches wherein a number of APs of the plurality of APs the first request is regarding is less than or equal to the number of allowed association links ([0129-0131], number of association links allowed is in response to number of affiliated APs sending requests, meaning the number of Aps is equal to the number of allowed association links.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights