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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8-16, and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US Publication No. 20220124857).
As to claims 1 and 20, Patil teaches a method and a first wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B) to: transmit, via a second communication link between the first wireless device and a third wireless device, a first frame that includes at least one of a first medium access control (MAC) address of a first wireless station (STA) affiliated with the first wireless device (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B, pp0107, pp0108, transmit data frame including STA_1 MAC address) or a link identifier associated with a first communication link on which the first wireless STA intends to communicate with a second wireless STA affiliated with a second wireless device; and receive, via the second communication link between the first wireless device and the third wireless device, a second frame that includes at least one of a second MAC address of the second wireless STA (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B, pp0107, pp0108, transmit data frame including STA_3 MAC address, and pp0148, the legacy STA may send a Discovery Response frame directly to the initiator on the same link on which the STA received the Request) or the link identifier associated with the first communication link on which the second wireless STA intends to communicate with the first wireless STA.
As to claim 8, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. The limitations of dependent claim 8 at least in part is directed to an optional limitation i.e. “wherein the one or more processors are further operable to individually or collectively execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: receive an indication of a link configuration associated with the second wireless device before initiating a Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) frame exchange between the first wireless device and the second wireless device”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 9, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. The limitations of dependent claim 9 at least in part is directed to an optional limitation i.e. “wherein the one or more processors are further operable to individually or collectively execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: establish a connection between the first wireless STA and the second wireless STA in accordance with the first frame and the second frame based at least in part on exchanging one or more frames via the first communication link and the first communication link”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 10, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 10 at least in part i.e. “wherein, to exchange the one or more frames, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: transmit a Reassociation Request frame via the first communication link in accordance with the first frame; and receive a Reassociation Response frame via the first communication link in accordance with the second frame” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 10 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 11, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 11 at least in part i.e. “wherein a Link ID subfield of a STA Control field in a per-STA subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the first frame comprises a value that uniquely identifies the first communication link on which the first wireless STA transmits the Reassociation Request frame” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 11 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 12, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 12 at least in part i.e. “wherein a Link ID subfield of a STA Control field in a per-STA subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the second frame comprises a value that uniquely identifies the first communication link on which the second wireless STA transmits the Reassociation Response frame” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 12 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 13, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 13 at least in part i.e. “wherein a STA MAC Address subfield of a STA Info field in a Per-STA Profile subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the first frame comprises the first MAC address of the first wireless STA that transmits the Reassociation Request frame” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 13 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 14, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 14 at least in part i.e. “wherein a STA MAC Address subfield of a STA Info field in a Per-STA Profile subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the second frame comprises the second MAC address of the second wireless STA that transmits the Reassociation Response frame” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 14 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 15, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Claim 15 at least in part i.e. “wherein the one or more processors are further operable to individually or collectively execute the code to cause the first wireless device to: verify, for each communication link of a plurality of communication links associated with the second wireless device, that a MAC address and one or more fields in the Reassociation Response frame correspond to an AP affiliated with the second wireless device” depends directly and/or indirectly on dependent claim 9. Thus, by virtue of dependency on claim 9, no patentable weight has been given to claim 15 because of the same and/or similar reasons discussed in claim 9 above (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 16, Patil teaches wherein the first wireless device comprises a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) (fig. 3), the second wireless device comprises a first AP MLD associated with a current AP serving the first wireless STA (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim), and the third wireless device comprises a second AP MLD associated with the second wireless STA (fig. 3).
As to claim 18, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. The limitations of dependent claim 18 at least in part is directed to an optional limitation i.e. “wherein information from the first frame is provided to the second wireless device via a third communication link between the third wireless device and the second wireless device in accordance with an over-the-Distribution System (DS) Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) protocol”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 19, Patil teaches a second wireless device, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the second wireless device to (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B): receive, via a third communication link between the second wireless device and a third wireless device, a first frame that includes at least one of a first medium access control (MAC) address of a first wireless station (STA) affiliated with a first wireless device (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B, pp0107, pp0108, transmit data frame including STA_1 MAC address) or a link identifier associated with a first communication link on which the first wireless STA intends to communicate with a second wireless STA affiliated with the second wireless device; and transmit, via the third communication link between the second wireless device and the third wireless device, a second frame that includes at least one of a second MAC address of the second wireless STA (fig. 1, fig. 7A, fig. 9A-B, pp0107, pp0108, transmit data frame including STA_3 MAC address, and pp0148, the legacy STA may send a Discovery Response frame directly to the initiator on the same link on which the STA received the Request) or the link identifier associated with the first communication link on which the second wireless STA intends to communicate with the first wireless STA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 3, 5-7, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US Publication No. 20220124857) in view of Huang et al. (US Publication No. 20210120602).
As to claim 2, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the first frame comprises a first Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Action frame, and the second frame comprises a second FT Action frame.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches wherein the first frame comprises a first Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Action frame, and the second frame comprises a second FT Action frame (fig. 4, fast Basic Service Set (BSS) transition (FT) initial mobility domain setup, pp0092, pp0096, FT action frame). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patil with the teachings of Huang to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing sufficient bandwidth and acceptable response times to the users of wireless communication system (Huang, pp0003).
As to claim 3, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, the limitations of dependent claim 3 at least in part is directed to further optional limitations of the independent claim 1 i.e. “wherein a Link ID subfield of a STA Control field in a Per-STA Profile subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the first FT Action frame includes the link identifier associated with the first communication link on which the first wireless STA intends to communicate with the second wireless STA”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 5, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, the limitations of dependent claim 5 at least in part is directed to further optional limitations of the independent claim 1 i.e. “wherein a Link ID subfield of a STA Control field in a Per-STA Profile subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the second FT Action frame includes the link identifier associated with the first communication link on which the second wireless STA intends to communicate with the first wireless STA”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 6, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, the limitations of dependent claim 6 at least in part is directed to further optional limitations of the independent claim 1 i.e. “wherein a STA MAC Address subfield of a STA Info field in a Per-STA Profile subelement of a Link Info field in a Multi-Link element of the second FT Action frame includes the second MAC address of the second wireless STA affiliated with the second wireless device”. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to further optional limitation (No patentable weight has been given to further limitations of non-rejected optional limitations in the independent claim).
As to claim 7, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the first FT Action frame comprises an FT Request frame or an FT Confirm frame, and the second FT Action frame comprises an FT Response frame or an FT Ack frame.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches the concept wherein the first FT Action frame comprises an FT Request frame or an FT Confirm frame, and the second FT Action frame comprises an FT Response frame or an FT Ack frame (fig. 4, request and/or response frame for fast Basic Service Set (BSS) transition (FT) initial mobility domain setup, pp0092, pp0096, FT action frame). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patil with the teachings of Huang to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing sufficient bandwidth and acceptable response times to the users of wireless communication system (Huang, pp0003).
As to claim 17, Patil teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wireless device comprises a Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Originator (FTO), the second wireless device comprises a target Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Responder (FTR), and the third wireless device comprises a current FTR.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Huang teaches the concept wherein the first wireless device comprises a Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Originator (FTO), the second wireless device comprises a target Fast Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition (FT) Responder (FTR), and the third wireless device comprises a current FTR (fig. 4, request and/or response frame for fast Basic Service Set (BSS) transition (FT) initial mobility domain setup, pp0092, pp0096, FT action frame, and pp0081, STA or FTO performs a reassociation request/response exchange with the target AP. GTK, IGTK, BIGTK are delivered by the target AP in the FTE carried in the reassociation response). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Patil with the teachings of Huang to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing sufficient bandwidth and acceptable response times to the users of wireless communication system (Huang, pp0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights