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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 10-12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0396568 A1 (hereinafter “Huang”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0090057 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0117235 A1 (hereinafter “Bhanage”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19: Huang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD), a broadcast (BC) frame, or a multicast (MC) frame; determining, by the AP MLD, multiple links used by the AP MLD, the multiple links being linked between the AP MLD and a set of stations including station MLDs (see, e.g., figure 3A, [0026]-[0030]; broadcast or multicast messages are obtained for communication over multiple links between an AP MLD and non-AP STAs);
determining, by the AP MLD, a master link from the multiple links; converting, by the AP MLD, the BC frame or the MC frame to a unicast frame for the master link; and transmitting, by the AP MLD and by using the master link, the [unicast] frame to a station MLD of the set of stations (see, e.g., [0031], [0034],[0075], [0093]; a single link is determined and used for transmission).
Huang does not explicitly determining the master link based on usage condition of multiple links. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yoshikawa teaches wherein an AP MLD determines a primary link based on, inter alia, usage conditions (see, e.g., [0006], [0052]-[0061]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Yoshikawa, such as the signaling and/or link selection functionality, within the system of Huang, in order to improve throughput or communication efficiency.
Huang modified by Yoshikawa teaches sending a multicast frame over a single link, but does not explicitly state converting it to a unicast frame. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Huang modified by Yoshikawa, this feature is nevertheless taught by Bhanage (see, e.g., [0018]-[0020]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Bhanage, such as the dynamic multicast optimization functionality, within the system of Huang modified by Yoshikawa, in order to better ensure QoS.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the access point and medium of claims 10 and 19, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20: Huang modified by Yoshikawa and Bhanage further teaches wherein determining the master link from the multiple links comprises: selecting the master link from the multiple links based on at least one of processing capacities of multiple APs in the AP MLD corresponding to the multiple links, or healthy statuses of the multiple links (see, e.g., Yoshikawa [0006], [0052]-[0061]; and/or Bhanage [0018]-[0020]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the access point and medium of claims 11 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 12: Huang modified by Yoshikawa and Bhanage further teaches wherein determining the master link from the multiple links comprises: determining a number of station MLDs of the set of stations connected to each of the multiple links; and determining the master link based on the number of the station MLDs (see, e.g., Yoshikawa [0006], [0052]-[0061]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the access point of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-9 and 13-18 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.
Relevant Art
8. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476