Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received February 25th, 2026. Claims 1-8, 11-19, 22-29 have been amended. Claims 9-10, 20-21 canceled. Claims 1-8, 11-19, 22-29 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Application 18/361,675 claim benefit of US Provisional Applications 63/468,728 (05/24/2023), 63/417,891 (10/20/2022), 63/395,572 (08/05/2022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 25th, 2026, have been fully considered, but deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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, 5, 8, 12, 16, 19, 23, 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montemurro et al. (US 2023/0262786 A1) in view of Chu et al. (US 20220240264 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 23, Montemurro et al. discloses an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) (see Figure 1a [AP MLD]) comprising: a transceiver (paragraphs 0110-0111 [AP MLD with one or more transceivers]); at least one processor including processing circuitry operably coupled to the transceiver (paragraph 0110 and Figure 9 [Processor coupled to the one or more transceivers]); memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least on processor individually or collectively, cause the AP MLD (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0112 [the memory 920 or mass storage 930 may have recorded thereon statements and instructions executable by the processor 910 for performing any of the aforementioned method operations described above]) to: form a link with a corresponding station (STA) of a non-AP MLD (see Figure 1a [Non-AP MLD comprising multiple STAs with a corresponding link with a respective AP]); and transmit, to the non-AP MLD, information associated with emergency preparedness communication services (EPCS) operation parameters to the link (paragraphs 0005, 0011, 0031 [NSEP/EPCS; Each NSEP service type may be associated with a corresponding parameter set used to configure the service between an AP and a non-AP STA; the frame is sent by a STA or an MLD, and the frame further includes a set of EDCA or Priority Access parameters based on a traffic characteristic of the priority service]); determine that the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the non-AP MLD need to be updated (paragraphs 0106, 0107 [an NSEP service is in operation, being previously configured and enabled using methods described herein. An event triggers a change to the parameters associated with the priority access service for an existing specific service type]).
Montemurro et al. discloses the new frame could be called an (NSEP) Priority Access Update frame with the same or a similar format to the NSEP Priority Access Response frame 510 when used in an unsolicited mode (paragraph 0107) and the use of an unsolicited NSEP priority access response frame or an equivalent frame provides the technical benefit of updating parameters associated with a specific priority service type during the lifetime of an established service (paragraph 0109).
Montemurro et al. does not explicitly disclose transmit, to the non-AP MLD, a management frame for updating the EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD; and update the EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD based on the management frame (Applicant’s Spec 0068 Defines Management Frame as a beacon or probe response frames).
However, Chu et al. discloses transmit, to the non-AP MLD, a management frame for updating the EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD; and update the EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD based on the management frame (paragraph 0070 [in one embodiment, the update of information in EDCA Parameter Set element for NSEP service is a critical update. The update of the EDCA Parameter Set element for NSEP service may be done using a Beacon frame. In one embodiment, update of the EDCA Parameter Set for NSEP is carried in broadcast Action frame]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a beacon frame could be used to update the EDCA Parameter Set element for NSEP service during the lifetime of an established service. The motivation is to update the service parameters.
Regarding claims 5, 16, 26, Montemurro et al. further discloses wherein: transmit, to the non-AP MLD, unsolicited, an action frame for updating the EPCS operation parameters (paragraphs 0105-0106 [unsolicited update; AP MLD 105 shall send an unsolicited response frame, such as an NSEP Priority Access Enable Response frame 510 to the MAC layer 704 of the 106 non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD 106]).
Regarding claims 7, 18, 28, Montemurro et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 5, 16, 26, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the message for updating the EPCS operation parameters comprises a frame that includes a priority access multi-link element.
However, Chu et al. discloses wherein the message for updating the EPCS operation parameters comprises a frame that includes a priority access multi-link element (paragraph 0056 [One approach for implementing NSEP priority services may include: adding NSEP priority service capability information in the Multi-Link element or EHT MAC Capability Information Element to announce the capability of supporting NSEP service; and using action frames (request/response) to negotiate the enablement of NSEP priority access.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a priority access multi-link element to announce the capability of supporting NSEP service.
Regarding claims 8, 19, 29, Montemurro et al. further discloses transmit, to the non-AP MLD, a message for updating the EPCS operation parameters, wherein the message comprises an EPCS priority access enable response frame that includes updated values of the EPCS operation parameters (paragraph 0106 [An event triggers a change to the parameters associated with the priority access service for an existing specific service type; an AP MLD 105 shall send an unsolicited response frame, such as an NSEP Priority Access Enable Response frame 510 to the MAC layer 704 of the 106 non-AP STA affiliated with a non-AP MLD 106 ]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 13-14, 17, 21, 24-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montemurro et al. (US 2023/0262786 A1) in view of Chu et al. (US 20220240264 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 23, 26 above, and further in view of IEEE P802.11 (03-2021).
Regarding claims 2, 13, 24, the references as combined above do not explicitly disclose transmit, to the nonAP-MLD, a teardown message for tearing down the EPCS operation parameters for the corresponding non-AP MLD, determine that the EPCS operation parameters have been torn down, and setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD.
IEEE P802.11 discloses transmit a teardown message for tearing down the EPCS operation parameters for the non-AP MLD (page 13 [The NSEP Priority Access Teardown frame is an Action frame of category Protected EHT. It is transmitted by an MLD or EHT non-AP STA to disable NSEP priority access]), determine that the EPCS operation parameters have been torn down (page 15 [The teardown operation follows the similar procedure except it does not require a response, suggesting a response could be sent, though not required]), and setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD (page 17 [The initiating AP MLD shall transmit an NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame (9.6.36.2 NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame details) to an associated non-AP MLD or EHT non-AP STA with dot11EHTNSEPPriorityAccessActivated set to true]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize an AP MLD could send a teardown message and enable request frame as shown by IEEE P802.11 in order to update the new parameters.
Regarding claims 3, 14, 25, the references as combined above do not explicitly disclose receive a teardown message from the non-AP MLD for tearing down the EPCS operation parameters for the non-AP MLD, determine that the EPCS operation parameters have been torn down, and setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD.
IEEE P802.11 discloses receive a teardown message from the non-AP MLD for tearing down the EPCS operation parameters for the non-AP MLD (page 13 [The NSEP Priority Access Teardown frame is an Action frame of category Protected EHT. It is transmitted by an MLD or EHT non-AP STA to disable NSEP priority access]), determine that the EPCS operation parameters have been torn down (page 15 [The teardown operation follows the similar procedure except it does not require a response, suggesting a response could be sent, though not required]), and setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the non-AP MLD (page 17 [The initiating AP MLD shall transmit an NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame (9.6.36.2 NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame details) to an associated non-AP MLD or EHT non-AP STA with dot11EHTNSEPPriorityAccessActivated set to true]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize an AP MLD could send a teardown message and enable request frame as shown by IEEE P802.11 in order to update the new parameters.
Regarding claims 6, 17, 27, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 5, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the action frame comprises a frame that includes an action field.
However, IEEE P802.11 discloses wherein the action frame comprises a frame that includes an action field (page 12 [The NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame is an Action frame of category Protected EHT. It is transmitted by a requesting MLD or EHT non-AP STA to request that NSEP priority access be enabled. The Action field of the NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame contains the information shown in Table 9-X (NSEP Priority Access Enable Request Action field format)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize an AP MLD could send a teardown message and enable request frame as shown by IEEE P802.11 in order to update the new parameters.
Regarding claims 10, 21, Montemurro et al. further discloses wherein: the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the corresponding STA need to be updated and to determine the procedure for updating the EPCS operation parameters (paragraphs 0106, 0107 [an NSEP service is in operation, being previously configured and enabled using methods described herein. An event triggers a change to the parameters associated with the priority access service for an existing specific service type]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the corresponding STA need to be updated, and to determine the procedure for updating the EPCS operation parameters, the processor is configured to: generate an action frame for setting up updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA, and setup the updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA.
However, However, IEEE P802.11 discloses wherein the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the corresponding STA need to be updated, and to determine the procedure for updating the EPCS operation parameters, the processor is configured to: generate an action frame for setting up updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA, and setup the updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA (page 12 [The NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame is an Action frame of category Protected EHT. It is transmitted by a requesting MLD or EHT non-AP STA to request that NSEP priority access be enabled. The Action field of the NSEP Priority Access Enable Request frame contains the information shown in Table 9-X (NSEP Priority Access Enable Request Action field format)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize an AP MLD could send a teardown message and enable request frame as shown by IEEE P802.11 in order to update the new parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 11, 18, 15, 22, 28 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or make obvious:
Regarding claims 4, 15, wherein: the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the corresponding STA need to be updated, and to determine the procedure for updating the EPCS operation parameters; the processor is configured to: generate a first management frame indicating that the AP MLD no longer has EPCS capability, determine that the EPCS operation parameters have been torn down, generate a second management frame indicating that the AP MLD again has EPCS capability, and setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA.
Regarding claims 11, 22, wherein: the EPCS operation parameters transmitted to the corresponding STA need to be updated, and to determine the procedure for updating the EPCS operation parameters, the processor is configured to: generate multiple sets of EPCS operation parameters for the corresponding STA, generate a message indicating which of the multiple sets of EPCS operation parameters is currently in use; and based on the message indicating which of the multiple sets of EPCS operation parameters is currently in use, setup updated EPCS operation parameters with the corresponding STA.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights