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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102(a)2
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,9,11-12,14-15,20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Park et al (US 11770461 B2) hereinafter as Park.
Regarding claim(s) 1,15,20, Park discloses a wireless device (See Fig(s). 1, wireless device 1010) comprising:
a controller configured (See Fig(s). 1A, controller 1062) with access controller and to generate a beacon frame and a beacon extension frame that follows the beacon frame, wherein the beacon frame carries an indication that the beacon extension frame follows the beacon frame (See Fig(s). 1a, 2, See ¶ abstract, 12,46, Embodiments provide a new short beacon frame format and its operation with full beacon frame transmissions for wireless communications devices…. the MAC sublayer may determine a frame control field comprising a type field indicative of an extension frame and a subtype indicative of a short beacon.).
a wireless transceiver configured to transmit the beacon frame and the beacon extension frame to a plurality of devices that are compatible with a wireless communications (See Fig(s). 1,2, wireless devices 1010, 1050, etc., See ¶ abstract, 12, the MAC sublayer may determine a frame control field comprising a type field indicative of an extension frame and a subtype indicative of a short beacon.. See ¶ 34,45-46, claim 8, See Fig(s). 1A, The frame control field 1062 may be two octets and may identify the type and subtype of the frame such as an extension type and short beacon subtype frame.).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Park discloses wherein the wireless device is a wireless access point (AP) (See Fig(s). 1 See ¶ 16).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Park discloses wherein the devices that are compatible with the wireless communications protocol comprise a plurality of non-AP station (STA) devices ((See Fig(s). 1, plurality of devices which can be non-AP stations).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Park discloses wherein the beacon extension frame contains a multi-link element (See ¶ 18).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Park discloses wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to transmit the beacon extension frame to the devices after the beacon frame is transmitted to the devices (See Fig(s). 1,2, wireless devices 1010, 1050, etc., See ¶ abstract, 12, the MAC sublayer may determine a frame control field comprising a type field indicative of an extension frame and a subtype indicative of a short beacon.. See ¶ 34,45-46, claim 8, See Fig(s). 1A, The frame control field 1062 may be two octets and may identify the type and subtype of the frame such as an extension type and short beacon subtype frame.).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Park discloses wherein the wireless communications protocol comprises an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol (See ¶ 14).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Park discloses wherein the wireless device is a component of a multi-link device (MLD) (See ¶ 12, while one SSID is shown, however, multi ones are possible).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-7,13,16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 11770461 B2) hereinafter as Park in view of Huang (US 20250126461 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4,16, Huang discloses wherein the beacon extension frame contains Ultra High Reliability (UHR) information that is understandable by a plurality of UHR station (STA) devices (See Fig(s). 9, See ¶ 97, the UHR capabilities element is included in a beacon frame).
UHR improves frequency diversity gain, reduces power consumption, achieve ultra-high throughput, provide good communication performance, and/or provide high reliability.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Huang within Park , to achieve ultra-high throughput, provide good communication performance, and/or provide high reliability.
Regarding claim(s) 5, Huang discloses where the devices that are compatible with the wireless communications protocol include non-UHR STA devices (See Fig(s). 7 which shows regular Stations 20, See ¶ 87-88). Reasons for combining same as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 6,17,18, Huang discloses the beacon extension frame contains information specific to Extremely High Throughput (EHT) operation or capabilities, High Efficiency (HE) operation or capabilities, Very High Throughput (VHT) operation or capabilities, or High Throughput (HT) operation or capabilities (See Fig(s). 9, See ¶ 4, with extremely high throughput capabilities). Reasons for combining same as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 7, Huang discloses where the devices that are compatible with the wireless communications protocol are all Ultra High Reliability (UHR) station (STA) devices. (See Fig(s). 7 which shows regular Stations 20, See ¶ 87-88). Reasons for combining same as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 13, Huang discloses wherein the wireless communications protocol comprises an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11bn protocol (See ¶ 86). Reasons for combining same as claim 4.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Park et al (US 11770461 B2) hereinafter as Park in view of Oteri et al (US 20160381565 A1) hereinafter as Oteri.
Regarding claim(s) 8, Oteri discloses wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to transmit the beacon extension frame during a critical update (See ¶ 171, an AP deployed by a provider may be preconfigured and/or updated with Provider Coordinator information, which may be stored in the AP's management information base (MIB). An AP may include a Provider Coordinator element in its beacon, short beacon, or any other types of management, control, or extension frames.)
Providing updated information improves performance through bug fixes and optimizations and better functionality and user experience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Oteri within Park, so as to improve performance through bug fixes and optimizations and better functionality and user experience.
Claim(s) 10,19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 11770461 B2) hereinafter as Park in view of Tsai (US 20070143637 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 10,19, Tsai discloses wherein the controller is further configured to generate a second beacon extension frame, wherein the beacon extension frame carries an indication that the second beacon extension frame follows the beacon extension frame, and wherein the wireless transceiver is further configured to transmit the second beacon extension frame to the devices after the beacon extension frame is transmitted to the devices (See ¶ 36, In one frame extension, a shorter version of the power saving beacon (compared to the larger regular beacon frame) is provided that allows a reduction in transmission time to be achieved. This, in turn, reduces the amount of energy consumed. In a second frame extension, a greater amount of power saving information is provided for a specific power saving client device.).
Second extension frame provides power saving functionality to the client devices to reduce overall transmission power between devices and access points.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Tsai within Park so as to improve overall power saving for the client devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of appropriate prior art(s) for Applicant’s consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raj Jain whose telephone number is (571) 272-3145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th ~8 ~6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RAJ JAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights