DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The present application does not claim for foreign priority.
The application has a provisional application 63/482,552 filed on 1/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, 19, and 27 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is suggested to replace “AP (access point)” with “access point (AP)” and “MLD (multi-link device)” with “multi-link device (MLD)” for consistency in style with the rest of the claims.
In claims 18 and 19, it is suggested to replace “EML (Enhanced Multi-Link)” with “Enhanced Multi-Link (EML)” for consistency in style with the rest of the claims.
In claim 27, it is suggested to replace “UHR” with “ultra-high reliability (UHR)” and “EHT” with “extreme high throughput (EHT)” for clarity of the terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1-29:
The specification discloses Multi-link device (MLD) architecture (para. [0023-0031]), Coordination across links (para. [0040-0045]), TID-to-link mapping and negotiation (para. [0069-0085]), General feature negotiation concepts (para. [0086-0095]), Capability signaling (para. [0102-0108]), and Example feature types (para. [0115-0125]).
The claims encompass allocation of numerous feature categories, including: TID-to-link mapping, Block acknowledgement, SCS, EPCS, TWT, EML operation, and security and link recommendation. However, the specification only provides generalized disclosure of feature types (para. [0115-0125]) and does not disclose how each feature is allocated, how allocation differs across feature types, and how allocation is coordinated across multiple AP MLDs.
The claims require allocating a first set of features and a second set of features. However, the specification only discloses general negotiation (para. [0086-0095]) and capability signaling (para. [0102-0108]). The specification does not disclose a concrete allocation algorithm, decision logic for assigning features, and criteria for partitioning features across AP MLDs.
The claims encompass centralized negotiation (roaming AP MLD), distributed negotiation (individual AP MLDs), and override mechanism (claim 9). However, the specification describes only general negotiation exchanges and does not enable all claimed negotiation permutations, and interaction between centralized and distributed negotiation.
Claims recite overriding mappings, coexistence of negotiated and announced mappings. However, the specification does not disclose conflict resolution rules, priority mechanisms, and synchronization across AP MLDs.
The claims require coordination across multiple AP MLDs with potentially different feature sets. However, the specification describes general coordination (para. [0040-0045] but does not enable feature partitioning across AP MLDs, synchronization of feature states, and cross-AP dependency handling.
Given the breadth of the claims relative to the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to practice the full scope of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites a limitation “protocol” and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “protocol” refers to a method, a system, or a set of rules. The claim also recites “first set of features” and “second set of features”, and it is unclear what constitutes a “feature” with no structural or functional boundaries. Also, in the limitation “affiliated with the roaming AP MLD”, relationship is vague and not clearly defined. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The term “allocate” is indefinite because the claim does not specify how the allocation is performed. It is unclear whether allocation refers to assignment, configuration, signaling, or negotiation. Additionally, claim 1 is grammatically improper in that it recites “A protocol ... comprising: wherein the protocol is configured to …” without properly introducing claim elements. This renders the scope of the claim unclear.
Regarding claims 2, 13, 18, 19, 20, and 28:
Claims 2, 13, 18, 19, 20, and 28 each recite a limitation “the set of features”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the set of features” in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the set of features” refers to “a first set of features” or “a second set of features” in its parent claim, claim 1.
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 recites a limitation “the features”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. The limitation “the features” in the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the features” refers to “a first set of features” or “a second set of features” in claim 1 or something else.
Regarding claims 3-12, 14-17, 21-24, 26, and 27:
Claims 3-12, 14-17, 21-24, 26, and 27 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 recites “first set of features” and “second set of features”, and it is unclear what constitutes a “feature” with no structural or functional boundaries. Also, in the limitation “affiliated with the roaming AP MLD”, relationship is vague and not clearly defined. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The term “allocating” is indefinite because the claim does not specify how the allocation is performed. It is unclear whether allocation refers to assignment, configuration, signaling, or negotiation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 29:
The claim 1 recites “allocating a first set of features” and “allocating a second set of features”. These limitations describe organizing and managing information and relationships between devices, which falls within the category of: certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely applies the abstract idea to a generic wireless communication environment, without no specific signaling mechanism, data structure, message format, and hardware interaction, which is insufficient. The “protocol” is also recited at a high level of generality.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include an inventive concept. “a roaming AP MLD” and “AP MLDs affiliated with the roaming AP MLD” are generic network elements. Also, “feature allocation” is described functionally without implementation details. Thus, the additional elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 29 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-28:
Claims 2-28 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim 1, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2023/0403753 A1, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1:
Huang teaches a protocol for wireless communication feature allocation, comprising: wherein the protocol is configured to, allocate a first set of features to a roaming AP (access point) MLD (multi-link device) (see, Huang: Fig. 1, STA 114; para. [0055], “a STA 114 that is moving relative to the STA's associated AP 112 may perform a “roaming” scan to find another AP having more desirable network characteristics such as a greater received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or a reduced traffic load”); and allocate a second set of features to a set of AP MLDs affiliated with the roaming AP MLD (see, Huang: Fig. 1, AP 112) (see, Huang: para. [0057], “The AP 112 and STAs 114 may function and communicate with one another over respective communication links 116 according to the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. These standards define the WLAN radio and baseband protocols for the PHY and medium access control (MAC) layers. The AP 112 and STAs 114 transmit and receive wireless communications to and from one another in the form of physical layer convergence protocol (PLCP) protocol data units (PPDUs).”; para. [0256], “various features that are described in the context of a single implementation also can be implemented in multiple implementations separately or in any suitable subcombination. As such, although features may be described herein as acting in particular combinations, and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can In some instances be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a subcombination or variation of a subcombination.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the set of features includes Traffic Identifier (TID) to Link mapping (see, Huang: para. [0010], “the interface also may be configured to obtain, from a peer MLD associated with the MBSS, a request for a Traffic Identifier (TID)-to-Link Mapping negotiation operation, a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation, or a restricted TWT (r-TWT) operation on a peering instance associated with the first communication link.”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Huang further teaches wherein a non-AP MLD has multiple sets of setup links with the set of AP MLDs (see, Huang: para. [0082], “APs 112 and STAs 114 can support multi-user (MU) communications. That is, concurrent transmissions from one device to each of multiple devices (for example, multiple simultaneous downlink (DL) communications from an AP 112 to corresponding STAs 114), or concurrent transmissions from multiple devices to a single device (for example, multiple simultaneous uplink (UL) transmissions from corresponding STAs 114 to an AP 112).”).
Regarding claim 18:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the set of features includes at least one of: a stream classification service (SCS), Emergency Preparedness Communications Service (EPCS) agreement, link recommendation, and EML (Enhanced Multi-Link) Operation; and wherein the at least one of the set of features is a roaming AP MLD level feature (see, Huang: para. [0100], “a non-AP MLD may include multiple radios but may be capable of concurrent communications on only a subset of the links. In such implementations, the non-AP MLD 920 may operate in an enhanced MLMR (EMLMR) mode or a hybrid EMLSR mode. A non-AP MLD operating in the EMLMR mode supports MLMR STR operation between certain pairs of communication links. For example, the STAs 921 and 922 may concurrently communicate on their respective links 901 and 902 in accordance with the MLMR STR mode of operation.”, wherein the non-AP MLD is equivalent to the roaming AP MLD of the instant application.).
Regarding claim 26:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the set of AP MLDs includes a first AP MLD (see, Huang: Fig. 1, e.g., AP 112) and a second AP MLD (see, Huang: Fig. 1, e.g., AP 132a-132k); wherein a first set of links are established between a non-AP MLD and the first AP MLD when the non-AP MLD is at a first physical location (see, Huang: Fig. 1, Link 116 in Coverage Area 118); and wherein a second set of links are established between the non-AP MLD and the second AP MLD when the non-AP MLD is at a second physical location (see, Huang: Fig. 1, Link 134 in Coverage Area 138).
Regarding claim 27:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 26.
Huang further teaches wherein the non-AP MLD is either a UHR non-AP MLD or an EHT non-AP MLD (see, Huang: para. [0120], “the Mesh Peering Open frame may include one or more of a Multi-link element, a TID-to-Link Mapping element, an EHT Capability element, an EHT Operation element, or an RNR element. The Multi-link element may indicate discovery information for each of the communication links associated with the mesh network 1000, and may indicate MLD capabilities common to the one or more second communication links of the mesh network 1000. The TID-to-Link Mapping element may indicate which of the communication links of the mesh network 1000 are provisioned or allocated for traffic flows belonging to each of a plurality of TIDs. The EHT Capability element may indicate one or more capabilities of each of the first and one or more second devices of a respective peer MLD, and the EHT Operation element may indicate one or more operation parameters for each of the first and one or more second communication links of the mesh network 1000.”).
Regarding claim 28:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the set of features includes Target Wake Time (TWT) (see, Huang: para. [0010], “the interface also may be configured to obtain, from a peer MLD associated with the MBSS, a request for a Traffic Identifier (TID)-to-Link Mapping negotiation operation, a Target Wake Time (TWT) operation, or a restricted TWT (r-TWT) operation on a peering instance associated with the first communication link.”).
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 recites the method which corresponds to the feature allocation of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-5, 7-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 (IEEE P802.11, Wireless LANs, Specification framework for TGbe, 19/1262r23, January 17, 2021, hereinafter IEEE P802.11).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein all of the set of AP MLDs of the roaming AP MLD announces a same TID-to-Link mapping negotiation support level.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein all of the set of AP MLDs of the roaming AP MLD announces a same TID-to-Link mapping negotiation support level (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “By default, after the multi-link setup, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links. The multi-link setup may include the TID-to-link mapping negotiation. TID-to-link mapping can have the same … link-set for each TID”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the set of AP MLDs of the roaming AP MLD announce a different TID-to-Link mapping negotiation support level.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein at least one of the set of AP MLDs of the roaming AP MLD announce a different TID-to-Link mapping negotiation support level (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “By default, after the multi-link setup, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links. The multi-link setup may include the TID-to-link mapping negotiation. TID-to-link mapping can have … different link-set for each TID”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the roaming AP MLD announces a TID-to-Link mapping.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the roaming AP MLD announces a TID-to-Link mapping (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “a non-AP MLD indicates that it requires to use the same link-set for all TIDs during the multi-link setup phase.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 teaches all limitations in claim 6.
IEEE P802.11 further teaches wherein the roaming AP MLD and the non-AP MLD negotiate which TID is mapped to each of the set of AP MLDs (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The multi-link setup may include the TID-to-link mapping negotiation. TID-to-link mapping can have the same or different link-set for each TID unless a non-AP MLD indicates that it requires to use the same link-set for all TIDs during the multi-link setup phase.”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 teaches all limitations in claim 6.
IEEE P802.11 further teaches wherein the non-AP MLD negotiates with each of the set of AP MLDs which TID is mapped to each of the set of AP MLDs (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The multi-link setup may include the TID-to-link mapping negotiation. TID-to-link mapping can have the same or different link-set for each TID unless a non-AP MLD indicates that it requires to use the same link-set for all TIDs during the multi-link setup phase.”).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 teaches all limitations in claim 6.
IEEE P802.11 further teaches wherein TID-to-Link mapping that is negotiated using individually addressed frames during a roaming procedure may override TID-to-Link mapping announced by at least one of the set of AP MLDs affiliated with the roaming AP MLD (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.3, Individual addressed data delivery, “After multi-link setup, the following is enabled to deliver individual addressed QoS traffic of a TID without BA negotiation across links, where the TID is mapped, in R1.”).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein a non-AP MLD has one set of setup links with one of the set of AP MLDs.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein a non-AP MLD has one set of setup links with one of the set of AP MLDs (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “By default, after the multi-link setup, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 11:
As discussed above, Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 teaches all limitations in claim 10.
IEEE P802.11 further teaches wherein the non-AP MLD negotiates with the one of the set of AP MLDs the TID-to-link mapping (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The multi-link setup may include the TID-to-link mapping negotiation. TID-to-link mapping can have the same or different link-set for each TID unless a non-AP MLD indicates that it requires to use the same link-set for all TIDs during the multi-link setup phase.”).
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Huang in view of IEEE P802.11 teaches all limitations in claim 10.
IEEE P802.11 further teaches wherein the non-AP MLD may follow a TID-to-Link mapping announced by an associated AP MLD in addition to a negotiated TID-to-Link mapping (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The TID-to-link mapping can be updated after multi-link setup through a negotiation, which can be initiated by any MLD.”).
Regarding claim 13:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the set of features includes a Block Acknowledgement (BA) agreement, the BA agreement is a roaming MLD level feature, and the BA negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and the roaming AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the set of features includes a Block Acknowledgement (BA) agreement, the BA agreement is a roaming MLD level feature, and the BA negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and the roaming AP MLD (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.5 Multi-link block ack, “A single block ack agreement is negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the set of AP MLDs all announce a same feature agreement.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the set of AP MLDs all announce a same feature agreement (see, IEEE P802.11: Section, 6 Multi-link operation, “The support of the following MLO features is mandatory for 802.11be AP and 802.11be STA. Discovery procedure, setup procedures, security procedures, default mapping (all TIDs mapped to all links, all setup links enabled), TIM indicating BUs at MLD level, BA at MLD level, power save per link, power state change indications per link, and BSS parameter critical update procedure.”; Section 6.4.2, “By default, after the multi-link setup, all TIDs are mapped to all setup links.”; Section 9, Multi-AP operation, “An EHT AP supporting the multi-AP coordination can send a frame (e.g., Beacon or other Management frame) including capabilities of Multi-AP transmission schemes.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 15:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and the roaming AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and the roaming AP MLD (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.5 Multi-link block ack, “A single block ack agreement is negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 16:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and a current serving AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and a current serving AP MLD (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.5 Multi-link block ack, “A single block ack agreement is negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 17:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and a new serving AP MLD.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein a feature agreement negotiation is done between a non-AP MLD and a new serving AP MLD (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.5 Multi-link block ack, “A single block ack agreement is negotiated between two MLDs for a TID that may be transmitted over one or more links.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 19:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the set of features includes at least one of: a stream classification service (SCS), Emergency Preparedness Communications Service (EPCS) agreement, link recommendation, AP MLD recommendation, security, and EML (Enhanced Multi-Link) Operation; and wherein the at least one of the set of features is an AP MLD level feature.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the set of features includes at least one of: a stream classification service (SCS), Emergency Preparedness Communications Service (EPCS) agreement, link recommendation, AP MLD recommendation, security, and EML (Enhanced Multi-Link) Operation; and wherein the at least one of the set of features is an AP MLD level feature (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.8.3, “The common part of the basic Multi-Link element transmitted by an MLD contains an EMLSR Mode subfield and an EMLMR Support subfield.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the set of features includes a channel switch announcement; and wherein a first one of the set of AP MLDs announces a channel switch before completing the channel switch, and another one of the set of AP MLDs announces the first one of the set of AP MLDs channel switch also before the channel switch is completed.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the set of features includes a channel switch announcement; and wherein a first one of the set of AP MLDs announces a channel switch before completing the channel switch, and another one of the set of AP MLDs announces the first one of the set of AP MLDs channel switch also before the channel switch is completed (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.6.4 TWT, “In R1, if an AP (AP 1) of an AP MLD includes a (extended) Channel Switch Announcement element and a Max Channel Switch Time element (if present) or includes a Quiet element and a Quiet Channel element (if present) in a Beacon frame or Probe Response frame it transmits, then another AP (AP 2) of the AP MLD shall include in the Beacon and Probe Response frames it transmits (or if another AP (AP 2) of the AP MLD corresponds to a nontransmitted BSSID, then the transmitted BSSID in the same multiple BSSID set as AP 2 shall include in the Beacon and Probe Responses frame it transmits) the (extended) Channel Switch Announcement element and Max Channel Switch Time element or the Quiet element and Quiet Channel element in the per-STA profile corresponding to AP 1 in a Multi-link element.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced by other links of the at least one of the set of AP MLDs.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 in view of Fig. 1 of Huang teaches wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced by other links of the at least one of the set of AP MLDs (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The TID-to-link mapping can be updated after multi-link setup through a negotiation, which can be initiated by any MLD. … When the responding MLD cannot accept the update, it can reject the TID-to-link mapping update.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 22:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced by another one of the set of AP MLDs when the at least one and the another one of the set of AP MLDs are neighboring AP MLDs.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 in view of Fig. 1 of Huang teaches wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced by another one of the set of AP MLDs when the at least one and the another one of the set of AP MLDs are neighboring AP MLDs (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The TID-to-link mapping can be updated after multi-link setup through a negotiation, which can be initiated by any MLD. … When the responding MLD cannot accept the update, it can reject the TID-to-link mapping update.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 23:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced as a reconfiguration at the roaming AP MLD level.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 in view of Fig. 1 of Huang teaches wherein adding or removing of a link of at least one of the set of AP MLDs is announced as a reconfiguration at the roaming AP MLD level (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The TID-to-link mapping can be updated after multi-link setup through a negotiation, which can be initiated by any MLD. … When the responding MLD cannot accept the update, it can reject the TID-to-link mapping update.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 24:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the set of AP MLDs are configured to allocate at least one of the second set of features to a physical link level of the at least one AP MLD with a non-AP device.
In the same field of endeavor, IEEE P802.11 in view of Fig. 1 of Huang teaches wherein at least one of the set of AP MLDs are configured to allocate at least one of the second set of features to a physical link level of the at least one AP MLD with a non-AP device (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6.4.2, “The TID-to-link mapping can be updated after multi-link setup through a negotiation, which can be initiated by any MLD.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Regarding claim 25:
As discussed above, Huang teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Huang does not explicitly teach wherein the features include medium access control (MAC) features; wherein the roaming AP MLD has a 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, IEEE P802.11 teaches wherein the features include medium access control (MAC) features; wherein the roaming AP MLD has a 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 (see, IEEE P802.11: Section 6 Multi-link operation, “Multi-link device (MLD): A device that has more than one affiliated STA and has one MAC SAP to LLC, which includes one MAC data service.”, wherein SAP stands for service access point and LLC stands for logical control link.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Huang in combination of the teachings of IEEE P802.11 in to implement IEEE 802.11 standardizations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights