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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant: “Applicant respectfully submits that Kim and Kucharewski, either individually or in combination, fail to teach the features of "determine whether there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters; responsive to determining that there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters, set the first subfield to a first value"“.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Kim discloses the limitation on it’s own merit based . Kim discloses a first subfield, i.e. Critical Update Flag subfield, that is used to indicate a change in the BPCC subfield (paragraph 612) where the BPCC value is incremented for each critical update to the AP’s of the AP MLD (paragraphs 608—609). The Critical Update Flag subfield read on the limitation “generate a first frame including a first subfield, the first subfield indicating whether there is an update”. The BPCC subfield for the AP, with the transmiied BSSID, is located in the common info field of the Basic Multi-Link element; this BPCC reads on updates for BSS level parameters (paragraphs 608, 611). The BPCC subfield for the other AP’s, not transmitting the same BSSID, is located in the MLD Parameters subfield of the TBTT info field of the RNR element; this BPCC reads on updates for MLD level parameters (paragraphs 610). The two PBCC subfields read on the limitation “one or more basic service set (BSS) level parameters or one or more MLD level parameters different from the one or more BSS level parameters”. When a new critical update occurs the AP increments the BPCC subfield value of the corresponding AP (paragraph 609); this operation reads on the limitation “determining that there is an update on the one or more MLD parameters”. In response to determining/updating either BPCC values, the AP sets the Critical Update Flag to “1” (paragraph 613). This reads on the limitation “set the first subfield to a first value”. Based on the interpretation/arguments by Applicant and the arguments above, Kim discloses “determine whether there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters; responsive to determining that there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters, set the first subfield to a first value”.
Kucharewski, included in the prior art rejection, teaches a more narrow interpretation of the MLD level parameters. Kucharewski discloses enhanced Multi-Link Capabilities subfield and a BPCC subfield that increments accordingly (paragraphs 246-248).
In view of the above discussions the rejection of claims 1-20 still stands.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0413165) (“Kim”) in view of Kucharewski et al. (US 2025/0287444) (“Kucharewski”).
For claims 1, 8, and 14; Kim discloses: generate a first frame including a first subfield, the first subfield indicating whether there is an update on one or more basic service set (BSS) level parameters or one or more MLD level parameters different from the one or more BSS level parameters; determine whether there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters (paragraph 607-615: If there is a change in the value transmitted from the BPCC subfield of the MLD Parameters field of the RNR element for an AP of the same AP MLD (or the value transmitted from the BPCC subfield of the Common Info field of the Basic Multi-Link element)); responsive to determining that there is an update on the one or more MLD parameters, set the first subfield to a first value (paragraph 607-615: the AP sets the Critical Update Flag subfield of the Capability Information field in the beacon frame to 1 and includes the next DTIM beacon frame for the link in which the AP operates); and wirelessly transmit, through a transmitter via a link of the plurality of wireless links corresponding to the device in a wireless local area network (WLAN), the first frame (paragraph 607-615: The AP provides the Critical Update Flag subfield of the Capability Information field of the beacon and probe response frame).
Kim discloses using the BPCC and CUF fields in a probe response for critical updates but does not expressly disclose updating enhanced “MLD level parameters”, but Kucharewski from similar fields of endeavor teaches: determine whether there is an update on the one or more MLD level parameters (paragraph 246-248: The BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 carries an unsigned integer, initialized to 0, that increments when a critical update occurs to the operational parameters for the AP that transmits the Basic Multi-link element. The Link ID Info subfield 3323 and the BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 are present in the Common Info field 3320 of Basic Multi-link elements carried in Beacon frames, Probe Response frames, and (Re)Association Response frames… The EML Capabilities subfield… MLD Capabilities subfield…Maximum Number of Simultaneous Links subfield…TID-to-Link Mapping (T2LM) subfield). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the enhanced MLD probe response as described by Kucharewski in the AP MLD signaling as described by Kim. The motivation is to improve configuration of AP MLD environment.
For claims 2, 9, and 15; Kim discloses: wherein the first frame includes a second subfield indicating a number of changes of the one or more BSS parameters, the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether there is a change to a value carried in the second subfield; and responsive to determining that there is a change to a value carried in the second subfield, set the first subfield to the first value (paragraph 607-615: If there is a change in the value transmitted from the BPCC subfield of the MLD Parameters field of the RNR element for an AP of the same AP MLD (or the value transmitted from the BPCC subfield of the Common Info field of the Basic Multi-Link element)… the AP sets the Critical Update Flag subfield of the Capability Information field in the beacon frame to 1 and includes the next DTIM beacon frame for the link in which the AP operates).
For claims 3, 10, and 16; Kim discloses: wherein the first frame is one of a beacon or a probe response frame (paragraph 607-615: The AP provides the Critical Update Flag subfield of the Capability Information field of the beacon and probe response frame).
For claim 4, 11, and 17; Kim discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Kim does not expressly disclose, but Kucharewski from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the one or more MLD level parameters are carried in at least one of a basic multi-link element, a reconfiguration multi-link element, a traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping element, or a multi-link traffic indication element (paragraph 246-248: The BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 carries an unsigned integer, initialized to 0, that increments when a critical update occurs to the operational parameters for the AP that transmits the Basic Multi-link element. The Link ID Info subfield 3323 and the BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 are present in the Common Info field 3320 of Basic Multi-link elements carried in Beacon frames, Probe Response frames, and (Re)Association Response frames… The EML Capabilities subfield… MLD Capabilities subfield…Maximum Number of Simultaneous Links subfield…TID-to-Link Mapping (T2LM) subfield). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the probe response as described by Kucharewski in the AP MLD signaling as described by Kim. The motivation is to improve configuration of AP MLD environment.
For claim 5, 12, and 18; Kim discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Kim does not expressly disclose, but Kucharewski from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the update on the one or more MLD level parameters relates to at least one of (1) adding a new device to the AP MLD, (2) removing a device from the AP MLD, (3) updating a value of a medium synchronization delay information subfield, (4) updating a value of an enhanced multi-link (EML) capabilities subfield, or (5) updating a value of an MLD capabilities and operations (paragraph 246-248: The BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 carries an unsigned integer, initialized to 0, that increments when a critical update occurs to the operational parameters for the AP that transmits the Basic Multi-link element. The Link ID Info subfield 3323 and the BSS Parameters Change Count subfield 3324 are present in the Common Info field 3320 of Basic Multi-link elements carried in Beacon frames, Probe Response frames, and (Re)Association Response frames… The EML Capabilities subfield… MLD Capabilities subfield…Maximum Number of Simultaneous Links subfield…TID-to-Link Mapping (T2LM) subfield). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the probe response as described by Kucharewski in the AP MLD signaling as described by Kim. The motivation is to improve configuration of AP MLD environment.
For claim 13; Kim discloses: responsive to determining that the device has not received a beacon frame from the AP MLD, wirelessly transmit, through a transmitter via the link to the AP MLD, a second frame requesting the one or more MLD level parameters, and the first frame is received responsive to transmitting the second frame (paragraph 10-11: A receiving multi-link device (MLD) transmits a probe request frame to a transmitting MLD through a first link. The receiving MLD receives a probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kucharewski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baron et al. (US 2024/0284305) (“Baron”).
For claim 6 and 19; Kim discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Kim does not expressly disclose, but Baron from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein in setting the first subfield to the first value, the one or more processors are configured to: set the first subfield to the first value until and including an end of a predetermined time interval (paragraph 134: Once Critical Update Flag subfield is set to 1, it is maintained to this value in every beacon frame transmitted by the reporting AP until the next DTIM beacon emission. The subfield is only set back to 0 upon DTIM beacon transmission (typically several beacon transmissions later)). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the update timing as described by Baron in the AP MLD signaling as described by Kim. The motivation is to improve configuration of AP MLD environment.
For claim 7 and 20; Kim discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Kim does not expressly disclose, but Baron from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the predetermined time interval is a delivery traffic indication message (DTIM) interval on the link (paragraph 134: Once Critical Update Flag subfield is set to 1, it is maintained to this value in every beacon frame transmitted by the reporting AP until the next DTIM beacon emission. The subfield is only set back to 0 upon DTIM beacon transmission (typically several beacon transmissions later)). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the update timing as described by Baron in the AP MLD signaling as described by Kim. The motivation is to improve configuration of AP MLD environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 2024/0114436); Chen discloses An AP MLD in multi-link operation may remove its links through MLD reconfiguration. Multi-link (ML) reconfiguration broadly refers to a set of post-association procedures to make changes to links between APs and non-AP STAs affiliated with two MLDs including adding or removing links, and without disassociation. This may be accomplished using the reconfiguration multi-link element in a beacon frame.
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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights