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
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 8/12/26. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2025/0393090) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0225200), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0199551).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches an apparatus of a station device (STA) [Figs. 5-6], the station device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to:
identify a frame (communication frame) received from a first access point (AP MLD 1) to which the station device is associated (see “501: An AP sends a communication frame, and correspondingly, a STA receives the communication frame” [0148]) while being concurrently associated to a second access point (AP MLD 2) (see Fig. 9A and “Optionally, when the non-AP MLD is not only located in the coverage area of the collocated AP MLD 1, but also located in the coverage area of the collocated AP MLD 2, both the collocated AP MLD 1 and the collocated AP MLD 2 may perform data transmission with the non-AP MLD” [0188]);
decode (parse) a traffic identifier (TID) in the frame, the TID indicative of a type of traffic associated with the frame (see “For information obtained by parsing the communication frame by the STA, refer to descriptions of a multi link element in the communication frame described below, refer to descriptions of a TID-to-link mapping element in the communication frame described below…” [par 155] wherein the TID-to-link mapping by definition assigns specific traffic types (TIDs), such as voice or video, to specific links or dedicated radio frequency bands (2.4, 5, or 6 GHz)); and
select, based on the TID, either a first communication link to the first access point or a second communication link to the second access point for the type of traffic (see “For example, the TID-to link mapping element may include a collocated AP MLD ID field 1 (for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 1 ), a link ID bitmap field 1, a collocated AP MLD ID field 2 (for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 2)…” [par 183] which implies the STA may select a first AP from AP MLD 1 or a second AP from AP MLD 2 for communication based on the received TID-to-link mapping); and
transmit, using the selected communication link, a second frame associated with the type of traffic (see Fig. 9A which implies that STA may be connected to both AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2 and may transmit a frame using TID-to link mapping which includes TID(s) mapped to IDs of both AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2 as disclosed in par 183).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the station device is concurrently associated, based on a separate association procedure, to a second access point that is not collocated with the first access point. In an analogous prior art reference, Smith teaches a station device (client device) is concurrently associated, based on a separate association procedure (multi-link setup signaling) (see “Client device 104 may associate with multi-AP MLD entity 140 using a MLD setup procedure (e.g., a multi-link setup signaling exchange) defined by IEEE 802.11be. As part of the setup, client device may logically associate with U-SAP 138 as well as establish multiple physical links, such as a first link 142 on first AP 124 and a second link on second AP 126” [0031] which reads on the claimed “concurrently associated based on a separate association procedure” because the client device performs a multi-link setup signaling exchange (i.e. signaling exchange with both first AP and second AP) for establishing links on the first AP and the second AP), to a second access point (second AP) that is not collocated with the first access point (see “First AP 124 and second AP 126 may be non-collocated in network 100. For example, as illustrated, first cell 110 corresponds to first AP 124, whereas second cell 112 corresponds to second AP 126” [0054] and “Thus, the APs are non-collocated, as each of the APs correspond to a different cell of plurality of cells 102. At least two of the non-collocated APs, such as first AP 124 and second AP 126, and a U-SAP 138 may comprise a multi-AP MLD entity 140” [0028] which implies that second AP is “not collocated” with first 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 allow the station device to be concurrently associated, based on a separate association procedure, to a second access point that is not collocated with the first access point, as taught by Smith, in order to communicate with a non-collocated access point based on the TID.
The combination of Huang and Smith does not explicitly teach that the TID is in a header of the frame. In an analogous prior art reference, Kim teaches a TID is in a header of a frame (see “More specifically, signaling for indicating a TID may be included in a MAC header of a frame” [0153]). 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 combination of Huang and Smith to allow the TID to be in the header of the frame, as taught by Kim, in order to effectively indicate the TID to the station device.
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first access point is part of a first collocated AP multi-link device (AP MLD) (Collocated AP MLD 1) comprising multiple first access points, wherein the second access point is part of a second collocated AP MLD (Collocated AP MLD 2) comprising multiple second access points, and wherein the station device is associated to an extended service set (ESS) of the first access point and the second access point (see Fig. 9A and “…both the collocated AP MLD 1 and the collocated AP MLD 2 may perform data transmission with the non-AP MLD which suggest the non-AP MLD or STA may be in the ESS of the AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein at least one access point of the first collocated AP MLD and at least one access point of the second collocated AP MLD are incorporated into a non-collocated AP MLD (see Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the TID maps to the multiple first access points of the first collocated AP MLD (AP MLD 1) or to the multiple second access points of the second collocated AP MLD (AP MLD 2) (see “for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 1), a link ID bitmap field 1, a collocated AP MLD ID field 2 (for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 2) …” [par 183].
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the frame is an 802.11 management frame (see “In an example, the communication frame may be generated by the AP. For example, the communication frame may be a management frame after a link is established between the AP and the STA, for example, a channel switching announcement” [par 151]), and
wherein the TID maps to a subset of the multiple first access points of the first collocated AP MLD or to a subset of the multiple second access points of the second collocated AP MLD (see “As shown in FIG. 1, an AP MLD includes an AP 1, an AP 2, ... , and an APn” [par 123] which suggests the AP MLD 1 and AP MLD 2 information in the TID-to-link mapping element maps to a subset of access points).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the multiple first access points use a same packet number space for replay detection (see “For example, the high MAC layer mainly completes operations such as allocation, encryption, and decryption on a sequence number (SN) and a packet number (PN) of a MAC service data unit (MSDU)” [par 125]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first access point is an access point of a first AP MLD (Collocated AP MLD 1), wherein the second access point is an access point of a second AP MLD (Collocated AP MLD 2), and wherein the first AP MLD and the second AP MLD are incorporated into an AP multi-MLD (see Fig. 12B Collocated AP MLD 0-2 is connected to non-AP MLD).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the TID maps to either the first AP MLD (AP MLD 1) or to the second AP MLD (AP MLD 2), wherein a first link identifier (link ID bitmap field 1) maps to the first AP MLD, and wherein a second link identifier (link ID bitmap field 2) maps to the second AP MLD (see “For example, the TID-to link mapping element may include a collocated AP MLD ID field 1 (for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 1 ), a link ID bitmap field 1, a collocated AP MLD ID field 2 (for example, corresponding to a collocated AP MLD 2), a link ID bitmap field 2…” [par 183]).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first AP MLD uses a first packet number space for replay detection, and wherein the second AP MLD uses a second packet number space for replay detection (see “For example, the high MAC layer mainly completes operations such as allocation, encryption, and decryption on a sequence number (SN) and a packet number (PN) of a MAC service data unit (MSDU)” [par 125]).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first access point is part of a primary access point comprising a medium access control (MAC) service access point (SAP) (see Fig. 4, AP MLD upper MAC sublayer MAC SAP 7), and wherein the second access point is part of a dependent access point without a MAC SAP (see Fig. 4, MAC SAP 1-6).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the primary access point uses a first packet number space for replay detection, and wherein the dependent access point uses a second packet number space for replay detection (see “For example, the high MAC layer mainly completes operations such as allocation, encryption, and decryption on a sequence number (SN) and a packet number (PN) of a MAC service data unit (MSDU)” [par 125]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver configured to transmit and receive wireless signals comprising the frame (see “The transceiver unit 1302 is configured to perform a receiving/sending-related operation of the STA in the foregoing method embodiments” [par 293]).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches the apparatus of claim 12, further comprising an antenna coupled to the transceiver to receive the frame (see “The transceiver 1410 may include a control circuit and an antenna” [par 334]).
Claims 14 and 18 recite subject matter similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 15 and 19 recite subject matter similar to claim 2 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 16 recites subject matter similar to claim 3 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 17 recites subject matter similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 20 recites subject matter similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
