DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 1/15/26.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 & 19-20 was/were amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2022/0124855 A1.
As to claim 1, Hu teaches a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising:
stations (STAs) each comprising a transceiver configured to form a link with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD with which the non-AP MLD is associated (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813); and
a processor operably coupled to the STAs,
wherein the transceiver of one of the STAs is further configured to receive, from the corresponding AP of the AP MLD, a first message that includes an announcement of addition of a new AP to the AP MLD (Hu, page 9, paragraph 81; page 15, paragraph 140-141; i.e., [0081] A non-AP MLD 912 may switch the AP end of the link from an AP 915 of the AP MLD 911 to an AP 916 of the AP MLD 911. FIG. 9A shows a ML reconfiguration changing/switching an AP end of a link, performed in a scenario that
(1) a non-AP connects to a new AP, (2) there are fewer non-AP STAs than AP STAs within MLDs, or (3) AP STAs have band/channel switching constraints; [0140] In some embodiments, the AP MLD may advertise the ML element in beacons, e.g., add new AP information in the Beacons), wherein a first of the STAs had previously established a link with the new AP (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126-127; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 (through a recent beacon transmission for example), can request the AP MLD 1810 for a new link 1833 to the new AP STA 1813, without disassociation ( e.g., operation on the other two links is unaffected); [0127] AP MLD it is associated with for a new link 1873 to an available AP STA 1853 affiliated with the AP MLD 1850, while staying in the associated state. Non-AP MLD 1860 may communicate availability of the new non-AP STA 1863 to the AP MLD 1850, and request to add the new non-AP STA 1863), and
wherein the processor is configured to determine to establish a new link between the new AP and the transceiver of the first STAs (Hu, page 6, paragraph 61; i.e., [0061] Multi-link operation (MLO) is an established feature of 802.llbe.
A link is a pairing of one AP STA of an AP MLD and one non-AP STA of an associated non-AP MLD. A mapping between AP and non AP STA entities of two associated MLDs is referred to as the "Multi-Link (ML) configuration.").
As to claim 2, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
automatically re-establish the previously established link as the new link between the first STA and the new AP (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 (through a recent beacon transmission for example), can request the AP MLD 1810 for a new link 1833 to the new AP STA 1813, without disassociation ( e.g., operation on the other two links is unaffected)).
As to claim 3, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 2, wherein:
the processor is further configured to generate a capability indication message that indicates that the first STA of the non-AP MLD is capable of automatically re-establishing previously established links upon addition of new APs to the AP MLD (Hu, page 9, paragraph 83; i.e., [0083] ) FIG. 9C shows a ML reconfiguration of adding a new link due to (1) traffic load increase, (2) changes of
current channel condition (e.g., range, reachability, etc.), or (3) a new application starting to run); and
the transceiver of one of the STAs is further configured to transmit, to the AP MLD, the capability indication message (Hu, page 9, paragraph 86; i.e., [0086] Response (ML Reconfiguration Response) may be sent by an AP MLD in response to the request. Notify (ML Reconfiguration Notify) may be sent by the AP MLD (unsolicited) to recommend ( e.g., propose/offer/implement) changes to configuration (i.e., reconfiguration) to non-AP MLD(s). In some embodiments, all frames may carry a Reconfiguration variant MultiLink element to indicate configuration (mapping between non-AP and AP endpoints of the MLDs)).
As to claim 4, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 2, wherein:
a previous traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping was applied to the previously established link (Hu, page 9, paragraph 87; i.e., [0087] FIG. 10A shows a traffic ID (TID) switch 1010 that performs a change/update of TID-to-link mapping. A TID switch operates
such that links remain the same, while mapping between TIDs and links can change (so as to change split between two links)), and
the processor is further configured to apply the previous TID-to-link mapping to the new link (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 (through a recent beacon transmission for example), can request the AP MLD 1810 for a new link 1833 to the new AP STA 1813, without disassociation ( e.g., operation on the other two links is unaffected)).
As to claim 5, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether identifying information or capability information associated with the new AP matches identifying information or capability information associated with a first AP with which the first STA was previously associated (Hu, figure 5; page 8, paragraph 80; i.e., [0080] non-AP MLDs may make the (associated)
AP MLD aware of all their STAs (STAs of the non-AP MLDs) and their capabilities (capabilities of the non-AP MLDs). For example, as shown in FIG. 8, non-AP MLD2
can make the AP MLD 810 aware of (1) STAl, STA2, STA3 of MLD2 and (2) capabilities (e.g., band/channel capabilities) of STAl, STA2, STA3 of MLD2); and
based on a determination that at least some of the identifying information or capability information associated with the new AP matches the identifying information or capability information associated with the first AP, determine that the first STA had previously established the link with the new AP (Hu, figure 5; page 8, paragraph 80; i.e., [0080] non-AP MLDs may make the (associated) AP MLD aware of all their STAs (STAs of the non-AP MLDs) and their capabilities (capabilities of the non-AP MLDs). For example, as shown in FIG. 8, non-AP MLD2 can make the AP MLD 810 aware of (1) STAl, STA2, STA3 of MLD2 and (2) capabilities (e.g., band/channel capabilities) of STAl, STA2, STA3 of MLD2).
As to claim 6, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
generate a second message that includes a request to establish the new link and an indication of a preferred TID-to-link mapping for the new link (Hu, page 9, paragraph 87; i.e., [0087] FIG. 10A shows a traffic ID (TID) switch 1010 that performs a change/update of TID-to-link mapping. A TID switch operates such that links remain the same, while mapping between TIDs and links can change (so as to change split between two links)), and
the transceiver of one of the STAs is further configured to transmit, to the AP MLD, the second message (Hu, page 9, paragraph 87; i.e., [0087] FIG. 10A shows a traffic ID (TID) switch 1010 that performs a change/update of TID-to-link mapping. A TID switch operates such that links remain the same, while mapping between TIDs and links can change (so as to change split between two links)).
As to claim 7, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
map all TIDs to the new link upon its establishment (Hu, page 9, paragraph 87; i.e., [0087] FIG. 10A shows a traffic ID (TID) switch 1010 that performs a change/update of TID-to-link mapping. A TID switch operates such that links remain the same, while mapping between TIDs and links can change (so as to change split between two links)), or
map no TIDs to the new link upon its establishment.
As to claim 8, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 1, wherein:
the first message includes an indication of a time at which the new AP will be added to the AP MLD (Hu, page 9, paragraph 83; i.e., [0083] ) FIG. 9C shows a ML reconfiguration of adding a new link due to (1) traffic load increase, (2) changes of
current channel condition (e.g., range, reachability, etc.), or (3) a new application starting to run), and
the processor is further configured to determine to establish the new link at or after the indicated time (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 (through a recent beacon transmission for example), can request the AP MLD 1810 for a new link 1833 to the new AP STA 1813, without disassociation ( e.g., operation on the other two links is unaffected)).
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-8. Therefore, claim(s) 10-17 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-8.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1-2. Therefore, claim(s) 19-20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2022/0124855 A1 in view of Barton, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2023/0319943 A1.
As to claim 9, Hu teaches the non-AP MLD as recited in claim 8. But Hu failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first message is received at least a predetermined threshold amount of time before the indicated time at which the new AP will be added to the AP MLD.
However, Barton teaches the limitation wherein the first message is received at least a predetermined threshold amount of time before the indicated time at which the new AP will be added to the AP MLD (Barton, page 3, paragraph 29; i.e., [0029] the associated STA(l) to indicate the AP RCM, i.e., to indicate that the AP will rotate from the first BSSID to the second BSSID. The action frame may be considered as a "new AP MAC address/BSSID warning" message. The future time may include a "time-to-activation" value, and may be implemented using a timer set to expire after the time activation value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to substitute RCM from Barton for control field from Hu to reduce the disruptive automatic disassociation or disconnection of all of the STAs from the AP (Barton, page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 18 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 9. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance that: A) with respect to claims 1, 10 & 19; the cited reference does not disclose or suggest “at a first message that includes an announcement of addition of a new AP to the AP MLD, where the first STA had previously established a link with the new AP as recited in the overall combination of the claim”. Hu discloses a multi-link reconfiguration where an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 available to its multi-link operation Hu further discloses that the case of non-AP switching to different AP within the MLDs is remotely similar to BSS Transition Management (BTM), which allows AP to instruct client to start roaming, but there is really no network-wide transition in a ML reconfiguration. For example, a BTM-like signaling can be used, but there is no re-association. (Hu, par. [0090]). However, Hu does not disclose or suggest that the ML configuration includes re-establishment or re-association of a STA in a non-AP MLD to a link in a previously-associated AP (page 10).
In response to A); In response to applicant's argument that the reference(s) failed to show certain feature(s) of applicant's invention, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which applicant relies (i.e., the ML configuration includes re-establishment or re-association of a STA in a non-AP MLD to a link in a previously-associated AP) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claim(s) 1, 10 & 19 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 addition, Hu discloses the claim limitation wherein “the transceiver of one of the STAs is further configured to receive, from the corresponding AP of the AP MLD, a first message that includes an announcement of addition of a new AP to the AP MLD” (Hu, page 9, paragraph 81; page 13, paragraph 126-127; page 15, paragraph 140-141; i.e., [0081] A non-AP MLD 912 may switch the AP end of the link from an AP 915 of the AP MLD 911 to an AP 916 of the AP MLD 911. FIG. 9A shows a ML reconfiguration changing/switching an AP end of a link, performed in a scenario that (1) a non-AP connects to a new AP, (2) there are fewer non-AP STAs than AP STAs within MLDs, or (3) AP STAs have band/channel switching constraints; [0140] In some embodiments, the AP MLD may advertise the ML element in beacons, e.g., add new AP information in the Beacons; [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with), wherein a first of the STAs had previously established a link with the new AP (Hu, page 13, paragraph 126-127; i.e., [0126] In FIG. 18A, an AP MLD 1810 may make a new AP STA 1813 (which operates at 6 GHz) available to its multi-link operation. For example, the AP MLD 1810 may advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 (through a recent beacon transmission for example), can request the AP MLD 1810 for a new link 1833 to the new AP STA 1813, without disassociation ( e.g., operation on the other two links is unaffected); [0127] AP MLD it is associated with for a new link 1873 to an available AP STA 1853 affiliated with the AP MLD 1850, while staying in the associated state. Non-AP MLD 1860 may communicate availability of the new non-AP STA 1863 to the AP MLD 1850, and request to add the new non-AP STA 1863). Clearly, advertise the new AP STA 1813 to an associated non-AP MLD 1820 or all non-AP MLDs it is associated with. Associated non-AP MLDs (e.g., MLD 1820), having discovered the new AP STA 1813 is equating to “a first message that includes an announcement of addition of a new AP to the AP MLD”. Therefore, Hu meets the claim limitation.
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 extension fee 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.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Asterjadhi, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20240196457 A1 discloses new AP with the re-associated STA and MLDs.
Jang, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20220312522 A1 discloses new TID for each link.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416