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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 and 4/30/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 63/357,996 (filed 7/1/2022) and 63/388,547 (filed 7/12/2022) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications are silent regarding “wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element” of independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 dependent thereon) and thus, are not supported. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments (wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element, and wherein the non-AP MLD uses the link recommendation in the long-term multi-link traffic indication element to retrieve buffered traffic indicated in subsequent TIM elements until the AP MLD transmits a multi-link traffic indication element recommending an alternate link set).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1: Lines 7-8 includes “includes per-link traffic indication” which should be “includes a per-link traffic indication”; Line 10 includes “and whether” which should be “and ”.
Regarding claim 11: Lines 10-11 includes “based on whether ... and whether...” which should be “in response to ... and ” similar to claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
A) Line 15 includes “the link recommendation”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
B) Line 16 includes “the non-AP MLD”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, examination continued on the assumption the limitation is similar to
- at least one non-AP MLD of the plurality of non-AP MLDs, or
- the plurality of non-AP MLDs.
C) Lines 18-19 includes “a multi-link traffic indication element” which introduces antecedent issues with “multi-link traffic indication element” of line 7 (and lines 12-13, and 15-16). Examination continued on the assumption an another / subsequent “multi-link traffic indication element” is intended.
D) Lines 12-14 includes “generate a beacon frame including the TIM element and the multi-link traffic indication element that is selectively included, and transmit the beacon frame to the plurality of non-AP MLDs” in along with lines 15-16 which includes “wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element”, however, in looking to the specification, para. 132 indicates “The Multi-Link Traffic Indication element may also be transmitted, without an associated TIM element, in an individually-addressed or group-addressed frame. In this example, the Multi-Link Traffic Indication element may be referred to as a “long-term” Multi-Link Traffic Indication element” [emphasis added] which is contrary to claim language. Examination continued on the assumption an inadvertent labeling issue was introduce and/or limitations / amendments related to “long-term multi-link traffic indication element” were inadvertently included / excluded as opposed to written description or enablement issues being introduced, and “long-term multi-link traffic indication element” is sufficiently similar to “multi-link traffic indication element” based on para. 133 (“The long-term Multi-Link Traffic Indication element may be the same as or similar to the Multi-Link Traffic Indication element 600 in FIG. 6A, except for the AID offset subfield which indicates a number n as shown in FIG. 9” [emphasis added]).
Regarding claims 2-4: The claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 1-2 includes “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited element refers to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 7 of parent claim 1 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in lines 18-19 of parent claim 1, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption either is possible.
Regarding claims 6-7: The claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 1-2, 2-3, and 4 include “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited elements refers to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 7 of parent claim 1 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in lines 18-19 of parent claim 1, or another “multi-link traffic indication element”, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption any is possible.
Regarding claim 9: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 1-2 includes “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited element refers to “multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 7 of parent claim 1 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in lines 18-19 of parent claim 1, or another “a multi-link traffic indication element”, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption either is possible.
Regarding claim 10: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Further, lines 1-2 includes “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited element refers to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 7 of parent claim 1 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in lines 18-19 of parent claim 1, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption either is possible.
Regarding claim 11: The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, lines 1-2 includes “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited element refers to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 8 of parent claim 11 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 27 of parent claim 11, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption either is possible.
Regarding claim 13: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12. Further, lines 2-3 includes “a link recommendation”, which is unclear as to whether the limitation relates to “a link recommendation” recited in line 17 of parent claim 11, or another “link recommendation”. Examination continued on the assumption any “link recommendation” is possible.
Regarding claim 14: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claims 16-17: The claims, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 18: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, lines 1-2 and 5-6 include “the multi-link traffic indication element” however, whether the recited element refers to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 8 of parent claim 11 or to “a multi-link traffic indication element” introduced in line 27 of parent claim 11, or another “multi-link traffic indication element”, is unclear. Examination continued on the assumption any is possible.
Regarding claim 19: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 20: The claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 11 and thus inheriting the same issues, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11. Further, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
The examiner respectfully recommends amendments indicating specific contents of a “non” long-term multi-link traffic indication and a long-term multi-link traffic indication based on, e.g., Figs. 4-9, as opposed to differentiating by a non-specific “association”.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (US 2023/0232276 A1) hereinafter Chitrakar in view of Ko et al. (US 2024/0114573 A1, made of record as pertinent art in the OA of 11/28/2025) hereinafter Ko.
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar teaches an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) associated with a wireless network (wireless access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) 2700 on wireless network; para. [42-44, 137] and Fig. 27), the AP MLD comprising: at least two APs affiliated with the AP MLD (plurality of APs affiliated with AP MLD; para. [07, 70, 117, 137]); and a processor coupled to a memory and the at least two APs (AP MLD realized with processor and software; para. [69, 137, 141] and Figs. [8, 27]), the processor configured to: generate a traffic indication map (TIM) element that indicates pending buffered traffic for a plurality of non-AP MLDs associated with the AP MLD (traffic indication map (TIM) element in TIM in beacon indicates buffered traffic [BU] for non-AP MLDs [non-AP MLD 1 and non-AP MLD 3], non-AP MLDs use associated identifier (AID) in TIM element; para. [49-50, 54, 57-59] and Figs. [4, 28]), selectively generate a multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD uses [selectively generate] link recommendation (LR) [multi-link traffic indication] element 402 and ML-TIM [multi-link traffic indication]; para. 58-61 and Figs. 4-5, two methods including first method for default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping under default shown in Fig. 4 and non-default TID-to-link mapping in Fig. 5; para. [51-52, 57-60, 83, 88]) that includes per-link traffic indication to retrieve buffered traffic for at least one non-AP MLD of the plurality of non-AP MLDs (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), in response to all of the plurality of non-AP MLDs have default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping (two methods including first method for default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping under default shown in Fig. 4; para. [51-52, 57-60, 83], two methods including second method for non-default TID-to-link mapping; para. [60, 88], default TIDs are mapped to all setup links; para. [51-52, 58]) and whether the AP MLD has buffered traffic with TIDs that are mapped to all enabled links for the at least one non-AP MLD (AP MLD uses bit 1 and bit 3 set to value of “1” in TIM element to indicate BU to non-AP MLD 1 and non-AP MLD 2, and uses LR to indicate which among all enabled links is recommended to retrieve BU; para. [50, 59] and Fig. 4, default TIDs are mapped to all setup links and default TIDs mapping shown in Fig. 4; para. [54-56, 51-52, 57-60, 83]), generate a beacon frame including the TIM element and the multi-link traffic indication element that is selectively included (AP may use [selectively] an LR element and beacon frame includes TIM element 1002 and Link/TID/AC information set 1006 for LR bitmap 402 [multi-link traffic indication]; para. [50, 58-59, 74, 83]) and Figs. [4, 10]), and transmit the beacon frame to the plurality of non-AP MLDs (AP MLD transmits beacon to non-AP MLDs to notify non-AP of BU information, AID information, TIM information [required information thus sent to the plurality of non-AP MLDs]; para. [64-66, 68, 76])
Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element, and wherein the non-AP MLD uses the link recommendation in the long-term multi-link traffic indication element to retrieve buffered traffic indicated in subsequent TIM elements until the AP MLD transmits a multi-link traffic indication element recommending an alternate link set.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ko teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element (multi-link traffic [indication] element in beacon separate from TIM frame; para. [184, 193]), and wherein the non-AP MLD uses the link recommendation in the long-term multi-link traffic indication element to retrieve buffered traffic indicated in subsequent TIM elements (non-AP station retrieves buffered traffic from recommended per-link traffic indication bitmap; para. 191, multi-link traffic [indication] element included in TIM frame including TIM element; para. 184) until the AP MLD transmits a multi-link traffic indication element recommending an alternate link set (new proposed TID-to-link mapping when TID-to-link torn down or rejected determined from multi-link traffic [indication] element; para. [195, 381, 386-387]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Ko to the system of Chitrakar, where Chitrakar’s reduced overhead for signaling additional information about buffer traffic (BU)s and traffic identifier (TID)s associated with BUs (para. 05) along with Ko’s reduced association ID (AID) bits (para. 232) improves efficiency of the system by reducing overhead.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chitrakar further teaches the AP MLD has buffered traffic with TIDs that are not mapped to all enabled links for the at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs (non-default TID-to-link mapping in Fig. 5; para. 60-61, ML-TIM 502 for TIDs that include link sets for portions of enabled links of non-AP MLD to retrieve BU of AP MLD; para. 61, Fig. 5 showing AID 1 for non-AP MDL 1 with TID having two different sets of links and ML-TIM indicates BU on first set of links, thus AP MLD has BU with TID not mapped to all enabled links).
While Chitrakar discloses [IEEE] 802.11be that enables negotiation of TID-to-link mapping, Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate the multi-link traffic indication element when at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs has successfully negotiated a TID-to-link mapping with the AP MLD.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ko further teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the multi-link traffic indication element when at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs has successfully negotiated a TID-to-link mapping with the AP MLD (multi-link traffic [indication] element processed by non-AP [generated by AP MLD] when TID-to-link mapping negotiation successfully performed; para. 195).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Ko to the modified system of Chitrakar and Ko, where Chitrakar and Ko’s modified system along with Ko’s reduced association ID (AID) bits (para. 232) improves efficiency of the system by reducing overhead.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the processor (AP MLD realized with processor and software; para. [137, 141]) is configured to generate the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD uses LR [multi-link traffic indication] element 402; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4) when the AP MLD provides a link recommendation to retrieve buffered traffic to the at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs (AP MLD uses LR [multi-link traffic indication] element 402 including Bitmap 1 that indicates a recommended link for retrieving BU by non-AP MLD; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the processor (AP MLD realized with processor and software; para. [137, 141]) is configured to refrain from generating the multi-link traffic indication element (conventional TIM [without multi-link traffic indication element]; para. 54-56 and Fig. 3) when the AP MLD does not provide a link recommendation to retrieve buffered traffic to any of the associated non-AP MLDs (conventional TIM uses LMB to indicate links having BU for non-AP MLD [actual link, not recommended]; para. 57 and Fig. 3, AP MLD uses LR [multi-link traffic indication] to indicate use of recommended link [actual link used thus, no link recommendation]; para. 58) and when the AP MLD does not have buffered traffic with TIDs that are mapped to only a subset of enabled links for any of the associated non-AP MLDs (using default TID where BU can be retrieved by any enabled link of associated non-AP MLD [not mapped to only a subset of links] and conventional TIM; para. 53-57).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element (LR element 402; para. 59 and Fig. 4) includes a recommendation field (LR element includes bitmaps 1, 3 to recommend particular link [field]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4) that indicates the at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs (LR element includes Bitmap 1 for non-AP MLD 1 and Bitmap 3 for non-AP MLD 3; para. 59 and Fig. 4) for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication to retrieve buffered traffic (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), wherein the per-link traffic indication includes a link recommendation (Bitmap includes value of “1” for recommended link; para. 59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or a traffic indication (Bitmap includes value of “1” for recommended link for retrieving BU [traffic indication]; para. 59 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the recommendation field includes a set of bits (LR element including recommendation field includes bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 including bits; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each bit corresponding to a respective one of associated non-AP MLDs (bits of bitmap 1 used for AID 1 [non-AP MLD 1] and bits of bitmap 3 used for AID 3 [non-AP MLD 3]; para. 59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and non-AP stations (STAs), starting from an offset number of a traffic indication virtual bitmap in the TIM element (Link/TID/AC information set for LR bitmap [multi-link traffic indication] after [offset] virtual bitmap in TIM element; para. [83, 113] and Figs. [4, 10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element prior to Link/TID/AC information set, virtual bitmap indicating BU [traffic indication]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74], position pointed to by starting AID indicates position [offset] of link information including LR bitmap; para. [111-114, 123-124] and Figs. [18-21, 23-24]), wherein the each bit indicates whether the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication for corresponding non-AP MLD (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links], of traffic; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or non-AP STA.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the recommendation field includes a set of bits (LR element including recommendation field includes bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 including bits; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each bit corresponding to a respective one of associated non-AP MLDs (bits of bitmap 1 used for AID 1 [non-AP MLD 1] and bits of bitmap 3 used for AID 3 [non-AP MLD 3]; para. 59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and non-AP STAs that are indicated to have buffered traffic in a traffic indication virtual bitmap of the TIM element (Figs. [10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element, virtual bitmap indicating presence of BU [traffic indication indicating buffered traffic]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74]), starting from an offset number of the traffic indication virtual bitmap in the TIM element (Link/TID/AC information set for LR bitmap [multi-link traffic indication] after [offset] virtual bitmap in TIM element; para. [83, 113] and Figs. [4, 10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element prior to Link/TID/AC information set, virtual bitmap indicating BU [traffic indication]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74], position pointed to by starting AID indicates position [offset] of link information including LR bitmap; para. [111-114, 123-124] and Figs. [18-21, 23-24]), wherein the each bit indicates whether the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication for corresponding non-AP MLD (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links], of traffic; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or non-AP STA.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element includes one or more per-link traffic indication fields (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR element corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each field providing a link recommendation or a traffic indication for a respective one of the at least one of the associated non-AP MLD (each bit of bitmaps 1 and 3 either “1” [link recommendation for retrieving BU thus, traffic indication and link recommendation for non-AP MLD] or “0” [link is not being recommended for retrieving BU thus, traffic indication for non-AP MLD]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Ko, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2024/0015564 A1) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 5.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element optionally includes the recommendation field (AP MLD may use [optional] LR element as recommendation field; para. 58, LR element 504 includes recommendation field; para. 62 and Fig. 5).
While the combination of Chitrakar and Ko discloses a LR presence bitmap in a beacon indicating whether LR bitmap exists in the beacon, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko does not explicitly disclose the multi-link traffic indication element includes a recommendation present field that indicates whether the recommendation field is present in the multi-link traffic indication element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD configures field 500 [multi-link traffic indication element] configured for multi-link operations; para. 228 and Fig. 5) includes a recommendation present field that indicates whether the recommendation field is present in the multi-link traffic indication element (subfield 504 in field 500 indicates field is a link recommendation frame type to recommend link [recommendation present field]; para. 235 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park to the modified system of Chitrakar and Ko, where Chitrakar and Ko’s modified system along with Park’s addressing of supporting various TID-to-link mappings (para. 142-145) improves system efficiency by reducing overhead in configuration of various TID-to-link mappings.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Ko, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2021/0298102 A1) hereinafter Kwon.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Chitrakar and Ko discloses group addressed frames/BUs, separate beacon and TIM, and AID of 0 for group addressing, the combination of Chitrakar and Ko does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is included in a group-addressed frame and not associated with the TIM element, including a recommendation field that indicates the at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication to retrieve buffered traffic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD traffic indication virtual bitmap indicates separate element; [para. 45]) is included in a group-addressed frame (group addressed buffered traffic; para. 45) and not associated with the TIM element (separate element separate from TIM element includes link for group addressed buffered traffic; para. 45), including a recommendation field that indicates the at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication to retrieve buffered traffic (link recommendation included in separate element for group addressed buffered traffic and using AID of 0 to indicate group addressed [at least one non-AP MLD]; para. 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kwon to the modified system of Chitrakar and Ko, where Chitrakar and Ko’s modified system along with Kwon’s efficient identification of links with buffered data (para. 02) improves system efficiency by reducing overhead in identification of links with buffered data.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Park et al. (“CC34 Comment Resolution for 35.3.10.4 Traffic Indication”) hereinafter Park-CC34, and further in view of Ko.
Regarding claim 11, Chitrakar teaches a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) associated with a wireless network (a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) 2800 on wireless network; para. [42-44, 139] and Fig. 28), the non-AP MLD comprising: at least two stations (STAs) affiliated with the non-AP MLD (plurality of STAs affiliated with non-AP MLD; para. [08, 50, 71, 139]); and a processor coupled to a memory and the at least two STAs (non-AP MLD realized with processor and software [memory]; para. [69, 139, 141] and Figs. [8, 28]), the processor configured to: receive, from an AP MLD associated with the non-AP MLD, a traffic indication map (TIM) element included in a beacon frame (non-AP MLDs receive beacon from AP MLD to notify non-AP, beacon including traffic indication map (TIM) element; para. [64-66, 68, 74, 76] and Fig. 10), the TIM element indicating pending buffered traffic for the non-AP MLD (TIM element indicates buffered traffic (BU) for non-AP MLD; para. 50), determine whether a multi-link traffic indication element is present in the beacon frame (non-AP determines whether BU is indicated and then [determines] reads link recommendation (LR) element / ML-TIM [multi-link traffic indication element]; para. [57-60]), wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is selectively included in the beacon frame (AP MLD uses [selectively generate] LR [multi-link traffic indication] element 402 and ML-TIM [multi-link traffic indication]; para. 58-61 and Figs. 4-5, two methods including first method for default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping under default shown in Fig. 4 and non-default TID-to-link mapping in Fig. 5; para. [51-52, 57-60, 83, 88]) based on whether all of a plurality of non-AP MLDs associated with the AP MLD have default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping (two methods including first method for default traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping under default shown in Fig. 4; para. [51-52, 57-60, 83], two methods including second method for non-default TID-to-link mapping; para. [60, 88], default TIDs are mapped to all setup links; para. [51-52, 58]) and whether the AP MLD has buffered traffic with TIDs that are mapped to all enabled links for the plurality of non-AP MLDs (AP MLD uses bit 1 and bit 3 set to value of “1” in TIM element to indicate BU to non-AP MLD 1 and non-AP MLD 2, and uses LR to indicate which among all enabled links is recommended to retrieve BU; para. [50, 59] and Fig. 4, default TIDs are mapped to all setup links and default TIDs mapping shown in Fig. 4; para. [54-56, 51-52, 57-60, 83]), determine whether a per-link traffic indication for the non-AP MLD is present in the multi-link traffic indication element when the multi-link traffic indication element is present (AP may use LR element [non-AP determines whether present] to indicate recommended link using bitmap having bits corresponding to links with BU; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), the per-link traffic indication providing a traffic indication or a link recommendation to retrieve buffered traffic for the non-AP MLD (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
While Chitrakar discloses an AP MLD recommending a link to a non-AP MLD to retrieve BU, Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the AP MLD, a trigger frame to retrieve buffered traffic via a link indicated in the per-link traffic indication when the per-link traffic indication for the non- AP MLD is present, and receive, from the AP MLD, buffered traffic via the link indicated in the per-link traffic indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park-CC34 discloses transmit, to the AP MLD, a trigger frame to retrieve buffered traffic via a link indicated in the per-link traffic indication when the per-link traffic indication for the non- AP MLD is present (non-AP transmits trigger frame to the AP to retrieve BU on that [indicated] link where multi-link traffic element includes per-link traffic indication corresponding to AID of non-AP MLD; page 6), and receive, from the AP MLD, buffered traffic via the link indicated in the per-link traffic indication (non-AP MLD receives BU on that [indicated] link; page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park-CC34 to the system of Chitrakar, where Chitrakar’s reduced overhead for signaling additional information about buffer traffic (BU)s and traffic identifier (TID)s associated with BUs (para. 05) along with Park-CC34’s comment resolution (page 01) improves interoperability between providers and equipment by standardizing processes regarding traffic indication.
The combination of Chitrakar and Park-CC34 does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element, and wherein the non-AP MLD uses the link recommendation in the long-term multi-link traffic indication element to retrieve buffered traffic indicated in subsequent TIM elements until the AP MLD transmits a multi-link traffic indication element recommending an alternate link set.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ko teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is a long-term multi-link traffic indication element that is not associated with the TIM element (multi-link traffic [indication] element in beacon separate from TIM frame; para. [184, 193]), and wherein the non-AP MLD uses the link recommendation in the long-term multi-link traffic indication element to retrieve buffered traffic indicated in subsequent TIM elements (non-AP station retrieves buffered traffic from recommended per-link traffic indication bitmap; para. 191, multi-link traffic [indication] element included in TIM frame including TIM element; para. 184) until the AP MLD transmits a multi-link traffic indication element recommending an alternate link set (new proposed TID-to-link mapping when TID-to-link torn down or rejected determined from multi-link traffic [indication] element; para. [195, 381, 386-387]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Ko to the modified system of Chitrakar and Park-CC34, where Chitrakar and Park-CC34’s modified system along with Ko’s reduced association ID (AID) bits (para. 232) improves efficiency of the system by reducing overhead.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 11.
Chitrakar further teaches the AP MLD has buffered traffic with TIDs that are not mapped to all enabled links for the associated non-AP MLDs (non-default TID-to-link mapping in Fig. 5; para. 60-61, ML-TIM 502 for TIDs that include link sets for portions of enabled links of non-AP MLD to retrieve BU of AP MLD; para. 61, Fig. 5 showing AID 1 for non-AP MDL 1 with TID having two different sets of links and ML-TIM indicates BU on first set of links, thus AP MLD has BU with TID not mapped to all enabled links).
While Chitrakar discloses [IEEE] 802.11be that enables negotiation of TID-to-link mapping, Chitrakar does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is present in the beacon frame when at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs has successfully negotiated a TID-to-link mapping with the AP MLD.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park-CC34 discloses wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is present in the beacon frame when at least one of the associated non-AP MLDs has successfully negotiated a TID-to-link mapping with the AP MLD (AP MLD includes multi-link traffic element in beacon when at least one associated non-AP MLD has successfully negotiated TID-link mapping; page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park-CC34 to the modified system of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko, where Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko’s modified system along with Park-CC34’s comment resolution (page 01) improves interoperability between providers and equipment by standardizing processes regarding traffic indication.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 11.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic element is present in the beacon frame (Link/TID/AC information set 1006 for LR bitmap 402 [multi-link traffic indication] included in beacon; para. [50, 58-59, 74, 76, 83] and Figs. [10, 18]) when the AP MLD provides a link recommendation to retrieve buffered traffic to at least one associated non-AP MLD (AP MLD uses LR [multi-link traffic indication] element 402 including Bitmap 1 that indicates a recommended link for retrieving BU by non-AP MLD; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 11.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is absent in the beacon frame when the AP MLD does not provide a link recommendation to any of the associated non-AP MLDs (conventional TIM used as it is [without multi-link traffic indication element in beacon]; para. 54-56 and Figs. [1, 3-4], conventional TIM uses LMB to indicate links having BU for non-AP MLD [actual link, not recommended]; para. 57 and Fig. 3, AP MLD uses LR [multi-link traffic indication] to indicate use of recommended link [actual link used thus, no link recommendation]; para. 58) and when the AP MLD does not have buffered traffic with TIDs that are mapped to only a subset of enabled links for any of the associated non-AP MLDs (using default TID where BU can be retrieved by any enabled link of associated non-AP MLD [not mapped to only a subset of links] and conventional TIM; para. 53-57).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 11.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element includes a recommendation field (LR element includes bitmaps 1, 3 to recommend particular link [field]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4) that indicates at least one non-AP MLD (LR element includes Bitmap 1 for non-AP MLD 1 and Bitmap 3 for non-AP MLD 3; para. 59 and Fig. 4) for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), and the processor is configured to determine whether the per-link traffic indication for the non-AP MLD is present in the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD may use LR element to indicate recommended link [non-AP MLD determines whether per-link indication present], three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), based on the recommendation field (AP MLD may use LR element, LR element includes Bitmap 1 for non-AP MLD 1 and Bitmap 3 for non-AP MLD 3; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the recommendation field includes a set of bits (LR element including recommendation field includes bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 including bits; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each bit corresponding to a respective one of associated non-AP MLDs (bits of bitmap 1 used for AID 1 [non-AP MLD 1] and bits of bitmap 3 used for AID 3 [non-AP MLD 3]; para. 59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and non-AP stations (STAs), starting from an offset number of a traffic indication virtual bitmap in the TIM element (Link/TID/AC information set for LR bitmap [multi-link traffic indication] after [offset] virtual bitmap in TIM element; para. [83, 113] and Figs. [4, 10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element prior to Link/TID/AC information set, virtual bitmap indicating BU [traffic indication]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74], position pointed to by starting AID indicates position [offset] of link information including LR bitmap; para. [111-114, 123-124] and Figs. [18-21, 23-24]), wherein the each bit indicates whether the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication for corresponding non-AP MLD (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links], of traffic; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or non-AP STA.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the recommendation field includes a set of bits (LR element including recommendation field includes bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 including bits; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each bit corresponding to a respective one of associated non-AP MLDs (bits of bitmap 1 used for AID 1 [non-AP MLD 1] and bits of bitmap 3 used for AID 3 [non-AP MLD 3]; para. 59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) and non-AP STAs that are indicated to have buffered traffic in a traffic indication virtual bitmap in the TIM element (Figs. [10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element, virtual bitmap indicating presence of BU [traffic indication indicating buffered traffic]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74]), starting from an offset number of the traffic indication virtual bitmap in the TIM element (Link/TID/AC information set for LR bitmap [multi-link traffic indication] after [offset] virtual bitmap in TIM element; para. [83, 113] and Figs. [4, 10, 18, 20] showing virtual bitmap in TIM element prior to Link/TID/AC information set, virtual bitmap indicating BU [traffic indication]; para. [07, 70-71, 73-74], position pointed to by starting AID indicates position [offset] of link information including LR bitmap; para. [111-114, 123-124] and Figs. [18-21, 23-24]), wherein the each bit indicates whether the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication for corresponding non-AP MLD (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU [non-AP MLD 1 and bitmap 1 includes three bits for three links, non-AP MLD 3 and bitmap 3 includes three bits for three links], of traffic; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or non-AP STA.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-traffic indication element includes one or more per-link traffic indication fields (three bits in bitmap 1 and bitmap 3 in LR element corresponds to number of enabled links for non-AP MLD to retrieve BU; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4), each field providing a link recommendation or a traffic indication for a respective one of the at least one non-AP MLD (each bit of bitmaps 1 and 3 either “1” [link recommendation for retrieving BU thus, traffic indication and link recommendation for non-AP MLD] or “0” [link is not being recommended for retrieving BU thus, traffic indication for non-AP MLD]; para. 58-59 and Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Park-CC34, further in view of Ko and further in view of Park.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element optionally includes the recommendation field (AP MLD may use [optional] LR element as recommendation field; para. 58, LR element 504 includes recommendation field; para. 62 and Fig. 5).
While the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko discloses a LR presence bitmap in a beacon indicating whether LR bitmap exists in the beacon, the combination of Chitrakar and Park-CC34 does not explicitly disclose the multi-link traffic indication element includes a recommendation present field that indicates whether the recommendation field is present in the multi-link traffic indication element, and the processor is further configured to determine whether the multi-link traffic indication element includes the recommendation field, based on the recommendation present field.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD configures field 500 [multi-link traffic indication element] configured for multi-link operations; para. 228 and Fig. 5) includes a recommendation present field that indicates whether the recommendation field is present in the multi-link traffic indication element (subfield 504 in field 500 indicates field is a link recommendation frame type to recommend link [recommendation present field]; para. 235 and Fig. 5), and the processor is further configured to determine whether the multi-link traffic indication element includes the recommendation field, based on the recommendation present field (non-AP MLD determines recommended link [determines multi-link indication includes recommendation field] based on control field; para. 229-235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Park to the modified system of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko, where Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko’s modified system along with Park’s addressing of supporting various TID-to-link mappings (para. 142-145) improves system efficiency by reducing overhead in configuration of various TID-to-link mappings.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Park-CC34, further in view of Ko and further in view of Kwon.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko teaches the limitation of previous claim 15.
While the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko discloses group addressed frames/BUs, the combination of the combination of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-link traffic indication element is included in a group-addressed frame and not associated with the TIM element, including a recommendation field that indicates at least one non-AP MLD for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kwon teaches wherein the multi-link traffic indication element (AP MLD traffic indication virtual bitmap indicates separate element; [para. 45]) is included in a group-addressed frame (group addressed buffered traffic; para. 45) and not associated with the TIM element (separate element separate from TIM element includes link for group addressed buffered traffic; para. 45), including a recommendation field that indicates at least one non-AP MLD for which the AP MLD provides the per-link traffic indication (link recommendation included in separate element for group addressed buffered traffic and using AID of 0 to indicate group addressed [at least one non-AP MLD]; para. 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Kwon to the modified system of Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko, where Chitrakar, Park-CC34, and Ko’s modified system along with Kwon’s efficient identification of links with buffered data (para. 02) improves system efficiency by reducing overhead in identification of links with buffered data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US 2023/0308938 A1) discloses multi-link steering and control in WLAN.
Kim et al. (US 2023/0199551 A1) discloses a method and wireless communication terminal for transmitting/receiving data in wireless communication system.
Ko et al. (US 2023/0140556 A1) discloses wireless communication method using multiple links, and wireless communication terminal using same.
Min et al. (US 2021/0051513 A1) discloses enhanced traffic indications for multi-link wireless communication devices.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights