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 ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: please spell out the acronym “TSF” timers for they’re not well known in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9-12, 14-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KHANDAVALLI et al. (US 2024/0147318 A1), hereinafter KHANDAVALLI.
Regarding claim 1, KHANDAVALLI discloses a roaming AP (access point) MLD (multi-link device) for wireless communications, comprising:
a first affiliated AP MLD (AP MLD 104, see figure 1) and a second affiliated AP MLD (AP MLD 106, see figure 1);
a controller configured to:
establish a first set of links between the first affiliated AP MLD and a non-AP device at a first time (the AP 114 in communication with STA 102 via a set of links, see figures 1; ML STA 902 is connected to ML AP0 94 over two links, see figure 9);
wherein each of the first set of links from the first affiliated AP MLD includes a first identifier in a frame transmission (multi-link functionality, where there are multiple links active at a time and devices are capable of exchanging MLD MAC addresses, see ¶ 0122);
identify the non-AP device as a roaming device when at a second time (the user moves away from the ML-AP0 in some point in time, see figure 9 and ¶ 0117),
a first link from the second affiliated AP MLD, having a second identifier in a frame transmission, is visible to the non-AP device, and a link having the first identifier in a frame transmission from the first affiliated AP MLD is no longer visible to the non-AP device (as a result, traffic conditions on the second link 910 may deteriorate (as indicated by the second link 910 being depicted as a dashed line during a period of time B), see ¶ 0117 and figure 9); and
establish a second set of links between the second affiliated AP MLD and the non-AP device at a third time, after a second link having the second identifier in a frame transmission from the second affiliated AP MLD is visible to the non-AP device (the STA 902 sends an association request 912 to the second AP 906 via the first link 908 (during a period of time C) in an attempt to establish a multi-link connection with the second AP 906. The second AP 906 sends an association response 914 to the STA 902 via the first link 908 in response to the association request 912. At this point (e.g., at a time represented by a dashed line 916), the STA 902 loses data connectivity with the first AP 904, see ¶ 0118 and figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, KHANDAVALLI discloses a switch between the first set of links and the second set of links is in response to the non-AP device geographically roaming from a first location to a second location (the switching of links is in response to the ML-STA 902 moving away from the ML-AP0, see figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the non-AP device is an EHT non-AP device (STA 102 figure 1; ML-STA 902, see figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the non-AP device is an non-AP MLD (ML-STA 902, see figure 9); wherein the establish the first set of links is a first multi-link setup for the non-AP MLD (the ML-STA 902 establish the first set of links with ML-AP0, see figure 9); wherein the establish the second set of links is a second multi-link setup for the non-AP MLD(the ML-STA 902 establish the second set of links with ML-AP1, see figure 9); and wherein a switch between the first multi-link setup and the second multi-link setup is in response to the non-AP MLD geographically roaming from a first location to a second location (the switch between the first set off links to the second set of links is the result of a user of the STA 902 moves away from the first AP 904, see ¶ 0117).
Regarding claim 12, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the non-AP device has a same association state with the first AP MLD as with the roaming AP MLD (the STA 704 request the association with the AP 702 for the same association, see figure 7 and ¶ 0101-0102).
Regarding claim 14, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the first affiliated AP MLD has a different physical location than the second affiliated AP MLD (the AP 104 and AP 106 are in different physical location with each AP have serving area, see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the first set of links are established between the first AP MLD and the non-AP device when at the first time the non-AP device is in a first physical location (the first set of links are establish between the ML-STA 902 and ML-AP0 at the first location, see figure 9); and wherein the second set of links are established between the second AP MLD and the non-AP device when at the second time the non-AP device is in a second physical location (the switch between the first set off links to the second set of links is the result of a user of the STA 902 moves away from the first AP 904, see ¶ 0117; the second set of links are establish between the ML-STA 902 and ML-AP1 at the second location, see figure 9).
Regarding claim 17, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein the non-AP device is affiliated with a non-AP MLD (a STA 206d associated with STA 206f, see figure 2 and ¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 18, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein one link of the roaming AP MLD carries an a Traffic indication map (TIM) indication of any buffered group-addressed frames of all other links of the roaming AP MLD (the frame may include information such as the service set identifiers (SSIDs), basic SSIDs (BSSIDs), security capability, TBTT, RF channels (bands), traffic indication map (TIM), delivery TIM (DTIM), and connection speeds supported or used by the AP 702, see ¶ 0097).
Regarding claim 19, KHANDAVALLI discloses wherein one link of the first AP MLD carries a Traffic indication map (TIM) indication of any buffered group-addressed frames of all other links of the first AP MLD, and an indication of any buffered group-addressed frames of the links of the second AP MLD is not carried (the frame may include information such as the service set identifiers (SSIDs), basic SSIDs (BSSIDs), security capability, TBTT, RF channels (bands), traffic indication map (TIM), delivery TIM (DTIM), and connection speeds supported or used by the AP 702, see ¶ 0097).
Regarding claim 22, KHANDAVALLI discloses a method for multi-link setup of a roaming non-AP MLD for wireless communications, comprising:
establishing a first set of links between the first affiliated AP MLD and a non-AP device at a first time (the AP 114 in communication with STA 102 via a set of links, see figures 1; ML STA 902 is connected to ML AP0 94 over two links, see figure 9);
wherein each of the first set of links from the first affiliated AP MLD includes a first identifier in a frame transmission (multi-link functionality, where there are multiple links active at a time and devices are capable of exchanging MLD MAC addresses, see ¶ 0122);
identifying the non-AP device as a roaming device when at a second time (the user moves away from the ML-AP0 in some point in time, see figure 9 and ¶ 0117),
a first link from the second affiliated AP MLD, having a second identifier in a frame transmission, is visible to the non-AP device, and a link having the first identifier in a frame transmission from the first affiliated AP MLD is no longer visible to the non-AP device (As a result, traffic conditions on the second link 910 may deteriorate (as indicated by the second link 910 being depicted as a dashed line during a period of time B), see ¶ 0117 and figure 9); and
establishing a second set of links between the second affiliated AP MLD and the non-AP device at a third time, after a second link having the second identifier in a frame transmission from the second affiliated AP MLD is visible to the non-AP device (the STA 902 sends an association request 912 to the second AP 906 via the first link 908 (during a period of time C) in an attempt to establish a multi-link connection with the second AP 906. The second AP 906 sends an association response 914 to the STA 902 via the first link 908 in response to the association request 912. At this point (e.g., at a time represented by a dashed line 916), the STA 902 loses data connectivity with the first AP 904, see ¶ 0118 and figure 9).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANDAVALLI in view of HUANG et al. (US 2020/0396568 A1), hereinafter HUANG.
Regarding claims 4-7, KHANDAVALLI fails to disclose wherein the first identifier is same as the second identifier if the frame transmission is a group-addressed frame or wherein the first identifier and the second identifier are a same sequence number, or wherein the first identifier is different from the second identifier if the frame transmission is another frame, different from the group-addressed frame or the frame transmission is a group-addressed quality of service (QOS) data transmission frame.
In the same field of endeavor, HUANG discloses the device may determine a sequence number for a latest received group addressed frame on the first link by the non-AP MLD. The device may cause to send a response frame comprising a sequence number indication to the non-AP MLD, wherein the sequence number indication indicates to the non-AP MLD the sequence number to use for duplicate group addressed frames detection, and wherein the sequence number indication indicates to the non-AP MLD to drop group addressed frames with the sequence number on the first link to avoid duplicate group addressed frames. The device may duplicate the one or more group addressed frames on the plurality of links (see ¶ 0182) and a group addressed data delivery system may facilitate additional rule for option 1 to complete all the requirements of dealing with a duplicate group addressed frame across links under quality of service (QoS) or non-QoS group addressed traffic (see ¶ 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement HUANG’s teaching in the network taught by KHANDAVALLI in order to allow an AP and/or an STA ability to send group addressed messages to one or more other devices by broadcasting or multicasting the messages.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANDAVALLI in view of KNECKT et al. (US 2022/0167256 A1), hereinafter KNECKT.
Regarding claim 8, KHANDAVALLI fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first identifier and the second identifier is at least one of: a GTK (Group Temporal Key), an Integrity Group Temporal Key (IGTK), or a Beacon Integrity Group Temporal Key (BIGTK).
In the same field of endeavor, KNECKT discloses a wireless station may be configured to associate with an access point that may be included in and/or associated with a multi-link device (MLD)… Further, the wireless station may be configured to establish, with the access point, security for the new link, including one or more of (e.g., any combination of, including at least one of and/or all of) of a Beacon Integrity GTK (BIGTK) secure architecture (BIGTKSA), an Integrity GTK secure architecture (IGTKSA), a GTK secure architecture (GTKSA), or a peer wise transient key (PTK) secure architecture (PTKSA) for the added new link (see ¶ 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement KNECKT’s teaching in the network taught by KHANDAVALLI to provide security to the MLD link.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANDAVALLI in view of WANG et al. (US 2022/0022033 A1), hereinafter WANG.
Regarding claim 16, KHANDAVALLI fails to disclose the roaming AP MLD has a medium access control (MAC) service access point (SAP) address; and wherein the first AP MLD and the second AP MLD have a same MAC SAP address as the roaming AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG discloses this disclosure provides methods, devices and systems that facilitate mobility of wireless communication devices configured for multi-link operation (MLO)…For example, some aspects provide support for station (STA) multi-link device (MLD) roaming between access point (AP) MLDs, from an AP MLD to a non-MLO AP, or from a non-MLO AP to an AP MLD. In some aspects, a STA MLD may be configured to use a medium access control (MAC) service access point address (MAC-SAP address) of the AP MLD when re-associating or communicating with a legacy AP or with an AP MLD. In such aspects, the MAC-SAP address may be used by all STAs of the non-AP MLD for fast BSS transitions (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implement WANG’s teaching of using MAC-SAP address in the network taught by KHANDAVALLI in order to provides ability to communicate with legacy AP or a new AP MLD.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHANDAVALLI in view of NAIK et al. (US 2023/0328669 A1), hereinafter NAIK.
Regarding claims 20-21, KHANDAVALLI fails to disclose the roaming AP MLD corrects clock drift to be within a threshold between TSF timers of the first AP MLD and the second AP MLD or wherein the roaming AP MLD corrects clock drift based on TSF timers of any two AP devices affiliated with either the first AP MLD or the second AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, NAIK discloses when the APs included in, or associated with, an AP MLD use different clocks for the APs' respective TSF timers, clock drift between the respective clocks can lead to TSF offsets between the APs of the AP MLD. The IEEE 802.11 standard allows a maximum clock drift between the APs of an AP MLD of ±30 μs. As such, for a STA in PS mode with a DTIM=4 and associated with a first AP of an AP MLD, the clock drift between the STA and other APs of the AP MLD can be as much as 30 μs+80 μs=±110 μs. Accordingly, the clock drift between the STA and other APs of the AP MLD may exceed an acceptable level when the STA relies on beacon frames communicated at the beacon interval for synchronization (especially when one or more Beacons are skipped) (see 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement NAIK’s teaching in the network taught by KHANDAVALLI to correct the drift clock within acceptable allowable offset of IEEE 802.11 standard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 13 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.
Claim 2 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest wherein the frame transmission is a group-addressed data frame; and wherein the first affiliated AP MLD and the second affiliated AP MLD each owns a separate sequence number space for the group-addressed data frame.
Claim 3 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest wherein the frame transmission is a group-addressed data frame; and wherein the first affiliated AP MLD allocates a first sequence number to the group-addressed data frame for transmissions through a set of APs affiliated with the first affiliated AP MLD; and wherein the second affiliated AP MLD allocates a second sequence number to the group-addressed data frame for transmissions through a set of APs affiliated with the second affiliated AP MLD.
Claim 13 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest wherein the roaming AP MLD is coupled to a distribution system (DS); wherein the first AP MLD is serving the non-AP device; and wherein a mapping between the non-AP device and the first AP device with which the non-AP device is associated, is not provided to the DS.
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
The following address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) only:
Mail Stop _____________
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob A. Phunkulh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3083. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. (first week of the bi-week) and Monday-Friday (for second week of the bi-week).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor CHARLES C. JIANG can be reach on (571) 270-7191.
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).
/BOB A PHUNKULH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412