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 . This Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and amended claims filed on September 11, 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
2. The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 1, 3, 16, and 20 filed on September 11, 2025.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (EP #4 145 947 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. teach a first device (read as Non-AP MLD (Fig.5)), comprising:
a circuit configured to provide at least one disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame across a connection to a second device (read as send a multi-link association request frame (Fig.5 @ S101). Further, to add clarity to the rejection, Huang et al. teach the multi-link association request frame comprising of a disassociation imminent indicator bit (Fig.9b; Paragraph(s) [0100]-[0101])),
the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame comprising data indicating at least one target access point for the second device (read as Second AP MLD/Target AP MLD (Fig.5)).(read as “where the multi-link association request frame is used for requesting the non-AP MLD to perform multi-link tentative association with the one or more second AP MLDs.”(Fig.5; Paragraph [0062]))
Regarding claim 12, and as applied to claim 11 above, Huang et al. teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame is the disassociation frame. (Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 14, and as applied to claim 11 above, Huang et al. teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the circuit is configured to provide at least one basic service set transition management (BTM) request frame across the connection to the second device (Fig(s).5, 9b, and 10),
the basic service set transition management (BTM) request frame comprising the data indicating the at least one target access point for the second device. (Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 15, and as applied to claim 11 above, Huang et al. teach a first device and method (Fig(s).5, 10, and 13a) wherein the frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation.(read as 802.1X authentication (802.11 open authentication process) (Paragraph(s) [0121] and [0149]))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (EP #4 145 947 A1) in view of Ong (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0238239 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. teach a first device (read as Non-AP MLD (Fig.5)), comprising:
a circuit configured to provide at least one frame (read as multi-link association request frame) across a connection to a second device during a disassociation operation or deauthentication operation (Fig(s).5 @ S101 and 9b),
the frame comprising data indicating at least one target access point for the second device (read as Second AP MLD/Target AP MLD (Fig.5)).(read as “where the multi-link association request frame is used for requesting the non-AP MLD to perform multi-link tentative association with the one or more second AP MLDs.”(Fig.5; Paragraph [0062]))
However, Huang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the frame is a disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame.
Ong teaches a method wherein the frame is a disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame. (read as disassociation/deauthentication frame (Paragraph [0081]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication/disassociation frame as taught by Ong with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 16, Huang et al. teach a method (Fig(s).5 and 10), comprising:
providing data indicating at least one target device for a second device (Fig(s).13a); and
providing at least one frame across a connection from a first device to the second device in a disassociation operation or deauthentication operation (Fig(s).5 @ S101, 9b, and 13a),
the frame comprising the data indicating at least one target device for the second device. (read as Second AP MLD/Target AP MLD (Fig.5)).(read as “where the multi-link association request frame is used for requesting the non-AP MLD to perform multi-link tentative association with the one or more second AP MLDs.”(Fig.5; Paragraph [0062]))
Ong teaches a method wherein the frame is a disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame. (read as disassociation/deauthentication frame (Paragraph [0081]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication/disassociation frame as taught by Ong with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device and method (Fig(s).5, 10, and 13a) wherein the frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation.(read as 802.1X authentication (802.11 open authentication process) (Paragraph(s) [0121] and [0149]))
Regarding claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device and method (Fig(s).5, 10, and 13a)
However, Huang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the frame is provided by an access point connected to the first device.
Ong teaches a method wherein the frame is provided by an access point (read as gateway) connected to the first device. (read as “If the mobile device has already associated with a network that is not the home network, the gateway can send a disassociation/deauthentication frame …”(Paragraph [0081]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication/disassociation frame by a gateway as taught by Ong with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management (BTM) request frame.(Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame is the disassociation frame. (Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al. teach a first device. (Fig(s).5 and 10)
However, Huang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame is the deauthentication frame.
Ong teaches a method wherein the frame is the deauthentication frame. (read as disassociation/deauthentication frame (Paragraph [0081]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication/disassociation frame as taught by Ong with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the at least one frame provides an indication of a multi AP or single AP environment. (read as one or more second AP MLDs (Fig(s).5; Paragraph [0062]))
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the first device is configured as an access point. (Fig(s).5 and 10)
Regarding claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the second device is configured as a mobile client device. (Fig(s).5 and 10)
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a first device (Fig(s).5 and 10) wherein the data indicates a capability of the at least one target access point. (read as “the non-AP MLD may receive tentative association capability indication information sent by each AP MLD.”(Paragraph [0074]))
Regarding claim 17, and as applied to claim 16 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a method further comprising:
providing an indication of a multi access point or single access point environment across the connection to the second device (read as multi-link association request frame (Fig.5; Paragraph [0062])),
wherein the at least one frame comprises the indication. (Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 18, and as applied to claim 16 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a method further comprising:
selecting the target device for association with the second device. (read as “the non-AP MLD may receive tentative association capability indication information sent by each AP MLD.”(Paragraph [0074]))
Regarding claim 19, and as applied to claim 18 above, Huang et al., as modified by Ong, teach a method further comprising:
associating the first device with the target device. (Fig.9b)
Regarding claim 20, and as applied to claim 16 above, Huang et al. teach a first device. (Fig(s).5 and 10)
However, Huang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the frame is at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame.
Ong teaches a method wherein the frame is at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame. (read as disassociation/deauthentication frame (Paragraph [0081]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication/disassociation frame as taught by Ong with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (EP #4 145 947 A1) in view of Sundaram et al. (U.S. Patent # 10,462,672 B1).
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Huang et al. teach a first device. (Fig(s).5 and 10)
However, Huang et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame is the deauthentication frame.
Sundaram et al. teach a method wherein the at least one disassociation frame or deauthentication frame is the deauthentication frame.(read as deauthentication signal (Fig(s).2 @ 210; Abstract))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a deauthentication signal as taught by Sundaram et al. with the non-AP MLDs as taught by Huang et al. for the purpose of enhancing communication handoff by devices in a communication network.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed on September 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, see Page 8 states “In contrast to the explicit language of claims 1, 11, and 16, Huang does not show, describe, or suggest the use of these particular frames for this operation. In fact, the Examiner relies “upon reading multi-link association request frame (Fig.5 @ S101))” as a disassociation or deauthentication frame. Office action, paragraph 3. A multi-link association request frame is not a disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame. In fact, a multi-link association request frame is more akin to the opposite of a disassociation frame or a deauthentication frame.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Huang et al. teach a first device capable of sending a multi-link association request frame (Fig(s).5 @ S101 and 9b) Also, Huang et al. teach the multi-link association request frame comprising of a disassociation imminent indicator bit (Fig.9b; Paragraph(s) [0100]-[0101]) For example, “The disassociation imminent indicator bit indicates whether the non-AP MLD is to be disassociated. When the disassociation imminent indicator bit is set to 1, the non-AP MLD is immediately disassociated from the AP MLD.”(Paragraph [0101]) Hence, the examiner equates Huang et al. multi-link association request frame comprising of a disassociation imminent indicator bit with applicant’s disassociation frame concept.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Aboba et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2004/0243846 A1) teach “Some examples of management frames include association frames, re-association frames, disassociation frames, deauthentication frames, and so forth, that enable and control respective associations between the station and access point.”(Paragraph [0031])
Kostic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2003/0134642 A1) teach “an access point transmits a disassociation frame to a mobile station in the event that the access point has determined that an association should be terminated to enhance the overall access point loading.”(Paragraph [0039])
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
September 15, 2025
Prosecution Insights