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 communication is in response to amendment filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soma et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0235311).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, Soma discloses a device (figure 2 element 290) a method a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (paragraph 51) comprising:
a processor (figure 1 processor 102) configured to:
detect an application executing in association with a network at a location (figure 3 and paragraphs 76 and 78: figure 3 shows a software/application running in IHS 100 to implement adaptive multi-link control. Context information (e.g., application type, proximity based) such as applications under execution usable to determine when to enable or disable multi-link aggregation features);
analyze network data corresponding to the application execution (paragraph 78: software/application configured to collect context information such as, for example, RSSI from various APs, ToF from various Aps, physical location information, accelerometer data, etc. Software 300 may also include ML and /or AI algorithms configured to store and analyze other context information indicative of user behavior such applications under execution and their priorities, distance between the user and the IHS. Software 300 may be configured to use such information to perform multi-link aggregation that are specific to that context);
determine, based on the analysis, a set of network parameters (paragraph 76: optimizer UI 303 may receive as configuration parameters, a user’s selection of QoS indicators, thresholds, and/or context information (e.g. application type, proximity-based, posture-based, etc.) usable by software 300 to determine whether to enable or disable multi-link aggregation features in IHS 100. Paragraph 78: Software 300 may also include ML and /or AI algorithms configured to store and analyze other context information indicative of user behavior such applications under execution and their priorities. Paragraph 73: communication device’s operating context plays an important role in determining wireless link conditions), the set of network parameters indicating requirements related to connectivity and capacity capabilities of the network (paragraph 73: QoS, bandwidth, speed of wireless links, time of flight (ToF) – a link’s capabilities. The operating context plays an important role in determining wireless condition. Software 300 may be configured to use such information to perform multi-link aggregation that are specific to that context);
configure multi-link operation (MLO) components of the network based on the determined set of network parameters; and facilitate network activity for the application via the configured MLO components (paragraphs 73: device’s operating context plays an important role in determining wireless link condition. Information about wireless connection quality and capacity can be used in optimizing communication channel selection and multi-link aggregation. Paragraph 78: software 300 may be configured to use such information to perform multi-link aggregation operations that are specific to that context. Figure 5 and paragraphs 7 and 94-101: At least QoS parameters are used to configure multi-link operation and network connectivity via the configured multi-operation).
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 17, all limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches the MLO components correspond to at least one of a channel, band (paragraph 36: channel and/or band).
Regarding claim 3, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma further discloses determining, based on the set of network parameters, to activate the MLO components associated with a connection of the device, wherein the configuration of the MLO components is based on the activation determination (Figure 5 and paragraphs 7 and 94-101: activate MLO component for aggregation).
Regarding claim 5, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches the set of network parameters correspond to at least one of bandwidth, latency, packet size, signal strength, downloading, uploading, transmission power, or transmission frequency (paragraph 73: bandwidth and paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 6, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches collecting activity data from a plurality of applications operating on the network; analyzing the activity data; determining a plurality of patterns of behavior for the network; and storing the determined plurality of patterns of behavior (paragraphs 69-70, 73).
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches the device is a user device (paragraph 31 and 52).
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) 4, 10, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0235311) in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2024/0040634).
Regarding claim 4, all limitations of claim 3 are disclosed above. Soma does not teach but Kim discloses each activated MLO component is in a dormant state until the activation (figure 4; paragraphs 75 and 78: link(s) are in sleep state until activated by wake up procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Soma the activated MLO component is in a dormant state until the activation.
The motivation would have been for power saving.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma does not teach but Kim teaches the device is an access point for a location (paragraphs 54 and 62: multi-link device can be either station or access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a known element (device in Soma) with another (access point in Kim) for predictable result of multi-link operation.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed above. Soma further discloses determining, based on the set of network parameters, to activate the MLO components associated with a connection of the device, wherein the configuration of the MLO components is based on the activation determination (Figure 5 and paragraphs 7 and 94-101: activate MLO component for aggregation).
Soma does not teach but Kim discloses the activated MLO component is in a dormant state until the activation (figure 4; paragraphs 75 and 78: link(s) are in sleep state until activated by wake up procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Soma the activated MLO component is in a dormant state until the activation.
The motivation would have been for power saving.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0235311) in view of Nayak et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0272566).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, all limitations of claims 6, 11, and 16 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches analyzing, in association with the application, a set of patterns, the set of patterns being identified from the stored plurality of patterns of behavior (paragraphs 70 and 73);
Soma does not teach but Nayak discloses determining, based on the analysis of the set of patterns, a time corresponding to the application execution, wherein the time is indicated in at least one pattern in the set of patterns, wherein the detection of the application is based on the determined time (paragraphs 36, 38, and 62, 63: determine TWT parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Soma determining, based on the analysis of the set of patterns, a time corresponding to the application execution, wherein the time is indicated in at least one pattern in the set of patterns, wherein the detection of the application is based on the determined time.
The motivation would have been for power saving.
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0235311) in view of Aio et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0121602).
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 20, all limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16 are disclosed above. Soma further teaches the network is a location-specific network (paragraph 78), wherein the network is a WiFi mesh network (paragraph 48).
Soma does not teach but Aio discloses the WiFi mesh network comprises front haul (paragraphs 141 and 143) and back haul components (paragraph 139) between nodes of the network, wherein the front haul and back haul components comprise the MLO components (paragraphs 143 and 144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Soma the WiFi mesh network comprises front haul and back haul components between nodes of the network, wherein the front haul and back haul components comprise the MLO components.
The motivation would have been for relay communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 6 of Remark, regarding independent claims, the Applicant argues that Soma does not teach “detect an application executing in association with a network at a location.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Soma’s figure 3 and paragraphs 76 and 78 teaches software/application 300 instantiated through execution of program instructions 124 to receive context information and measure/collect network information. Figure 5 step 502 and paragraph 92 disclose receiving a packet from an application to send. Thus, Soma is determined to teach the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., monitoring or detecting specific application execution events as a trigger for network configuration decisions ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In page 6 of Remark, the Applicant argues that “Soma fails to teach, inter alia, analyzing network data corresponding to application execution to determine network parameters that indicate requirements related to connectivity and capacity capabilities. Soma's approach involves measuring link quality metrics such as throughput, latency, and packet loss on existing links, but this measurement is not performed in response to detecting application execution, nor does it analyze data specifically corresponding to an application's execution to derive connectivity and capacity requirements.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the software 300 could be the application itself. Furthermore, paragraph 93 discloses receiving packet from an application to send. Paraagraph 97 teaches detecting first or second type of application on a link. Paragraphs 73, 94-101 and figure 5 disclose network data are measured and analyzed to produce QoS parameters including distance, bandwidth and time of flight. Based on the QoS parameters, link aggregation may be performed. Thus, Soma is deemed to teach the claimed limitation.
In page 7 of Remark, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., application-specific requirements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466