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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14-17, 20, 22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0327836) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0287121, Hwang hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 28, Kim discloses an apparatus and method for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors (Figures 1 and 11) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: output, for transmission, a first frame indicating at least one of: a first limit on an number of links for association with a multi-link device (MLD) with which the apparatus is affiliated (Paragraph 175 teaches “An MLD (AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD) may transmit information about a link that the corresponding MLD can support through ML setup.”. That information is disclosed to include “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”); obtain, from a client, a request to at least one of associate or activate one or more links between the client and the MLD (Paragraphs 177 discloses “A plurality of links that can be used by the transmitting MLD and the receiving MLD related to ML communication can be set through ML setup, and this can be called an enabled link. The enabled link can be called differently in a variety of ways. For example, it may be called various expressions such as a first link, a second link, a transmitting link, and a receiving link.”); and process the request subject to at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraph 178: After the ML setup is complete, the MLD may update the ML setup. For example, the MLD may transmit information about a new link when updating information about a link is required. Information about the new link may be transmitted based on at least one of a management frame, a control frame, and a data frame. Based on the context of these disclosed features, ML setup would be subject to the signaled “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”)
Kim does not explicitly disclose the first frame indicating a second limit on a number of active links.
However, Hwang teaches indication of a second limit on a number of active links (Paragraph 130-132 teaches an EHT capability element including a capability field related to link operations. Paragraph 132 specifically teaches that capability information may include “a field indicating the maximum number of supported links”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 2, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the first frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, or a re-association response frame (Paragraph 123 teaches “a procedure in which the AP MLD configures a primary channel and announces it through a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, a beacon frame, etc. “).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 5, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain an indication that the client supports the first limit (Paragraph 175 teaches “An MLD (AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD) may transmit information about a link that the corresponding MLD can support through ML setup.”. That information is disclosed to include “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”); and process the request subject to the first limit only after obtaining the indication (Paragraph 178: After the ML setup is complete, the MLD may update the ML setup. For example, the MLD may transmit information about a new link when updating information about a link is required. Information about the new link may be transmitted based on at least one of a management frame, a control frame, and a data frame. Based on the context of these disclosed features, ML setup would be subject to the signaled “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose obtaining an indication that the client supports the second limit; and processing the request subject to the second limit only after obtaining the indication.
However, Hwang further teaches obtaining an indication that the client supports the second limit (Paragraph 130-132 teaches an EHT capability element including a capability field related to link operations. Paragraph 132 specifically teaches that capability information may include “a field indicating the maximum number of supported links”); and processing the request subject to the second limit only after obtaining the indication (Paragraphs 168-180 teaches negotiation of a multi-link operation which begins with exchanging EHT capability of the STA MLD and AP MLD. Configurations of new links and communication thereafter are then based on this exchanged capability information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 6, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain an indication that the client supports the first limit (Paragraph 175 teaches “An MLD (AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD) may transmit information about a link that the corresponding MLD can support through ML setup.”. That information is disclosed to include “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”); and output the first frame indicating the first limit only after obtaining the indication (Paragraph 178: After the ML setup is complete, the MLD may update the ML setup. For example, the MLD may transmit information about a new link when updating information about a link is required. Information about the new link may be transmitted based on at least one of a management frame, a control frame, and a data frame. Based on the context of these disclosed features, ML setup would be subject to the signaled “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose obtaining an indication that the client supports the second limit; and outputting the first frame indicating the second limit only after obtaining the indication.
However, Hwang further teaches obtaining an indication that the client supports the second limit (Paragraph 130-132 teaches an EHT capability element including a capability field related to link operations. Paragraph 132 specifically teaches that capability information may include “a field indicating the maximum number of supported links”); and outputting the first frame indicating the second limit only after obtaining the indication (Paragraphs 168-180 teaches negotiation of a multi-link operation which begins with exchanging EHT capability of the STA MLD and AP MLD. Configurations of new links and communication thereafter are then based on this exchanged capability information).
RE claim 10, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, a second frame indicating an update to at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraph 170-172 teaches that after initial negotiation the STA MLD and AP MLD may wish to perform negotiation for the multi-link operation, or maintain, configure or change a primary link. In these cases negotiation occurs which as set forth above includes the exchange of EHT capability information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 12, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 10 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a procedure to add or remove at least one link based on the update (Paragraph 170-172 teaches that after initial negotiation the STA MLD and AP MLD may wish to perform negotiation for the multi-link operation, or maintain, configure or change a primary link. In these cases negotiation occurs which as set forth above includes the exchange of EHT capability information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus and method of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 14, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured as an access point (AP) device (Paragraph 175 teaches the Multi-Link Devices may be an AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD).
RE claim 15, Kim discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors (Figures 1 and 11) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain a first frame indicating at least one of: a first limit on an allowed number of links for association with a multi-link device (MLD) affiliated with an access point (AP) (Paragraph 175 teaches “An MLD (AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD) may transmit information about a link that the corresponding MLD can support through ML setup.”. That information is disclosed to include “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”), and output a request to at least one of activate or associate one links between the apparatus and the MLD, subject to at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraphs 177 discloses “A plurality of links that can be used by the transmitting MLD and the receiving MLD related to ML communication can be set through ML setup, and this can be called an enabled link. The enabled link can be called differently in a variety of ways. For example, it may be called various expressions such as a first link, a second link, a transmitting link, and a receiving link.”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the first frame indicating a second limit on a number of active links.
However, Hwang teaches indication of a second limit on a number of active links (Paragraph 130-132 teaches an EHT capability element including a capability field related to link operations. Paragraph 132 specifically teaches that capability information may include “a field indicating the maximum number of supported links”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 16, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the apparatus is affiliated with non-AP MLD (Paragraph 175 teaches the Multi-Link Devices may be an AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD).
RE claim 17, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the first frame comprises a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association response frame, or a re-association response frame (Paragraph 123 teaches “a procedure in which the AP MLD configures a primary channel and announces it through a probe response frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, a beacon frame, etc. “).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 20, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, an indication that the apparatus supports the first limit (Paragraph 175 teaches “An MLD (AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD) may transmit information about a link that the corresponding MLD can support through ML setup.”. That information is disclosed to include “information on the number/upper limit of uplink/downlink links supported by the MLD (or STA)”).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, an indication that the apparatus supports the second limit.
However, Hwang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to output, for transmission, an indication that the apparatus supports the second limit. (Paragraph 130-132 teaches an EHT capability element including a capability field related to link operations. Paragraph 132 specifically teaches that capability information may include “a field indicating the maximum number of supported links”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 22, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain a second frame indicating an update to at least one of the first limit or the second limit. (Paragraph 170-172 teaches that after initial negotiation the STA MLD and AP MLD may wish to perform negotiation for the multi-link operation, or maintain, configure or change a primary link. In these cases negotiation occurs which as set forth above includes the exchange of EHT capability information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 24, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 22 as set forth above. Note that Hwang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a procedure to add or remove at least one link based on the update (Paragraph 170-172 teaches that after initial negotiation the STA MLD and AP MLD may wish to perform negotiation for the multi-link operation, or maintain, configure or change a primary link. In these cases negotiation occurs which as set forth above includes the exchange of EHT capability information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim with the teachings of Hwang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 27, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Kim further discloses the apparatus further comprising at least one transceiver configured to receive the first frame (Figures 1 and 11), wherein the apparatus is configured as a client device. (Paragraph 175 teaches the Multi-Link Devices may be an AP MLD and/or non-AP MLD, the latter being interpreted as a “client device”).
Claims 3, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hwang and further in view of (Kneckt et a. (US 2022/0418022, Kneckt hereafter).
RE claims 3 and 18, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 15 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frame comprises an information element (IE) having a common information field that includes at least one of the first limit or the second limit.
However, Kneckt teaches wherein the first frame comprises an information element (IE) having a common information field that includes at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraphs 166-171 teach an ML element that, when used in Association Requests and Association Response frames, may contain common parameters and complete set of per-STA parameters. The ML element may include common information for all links and paragraph 171 teaches “The common information field may include a MAC address for the AP MLD. The common information field may include information for all link IDs. The common information field may include parameters or information for all links. For example, transmission power delta may be included. The common information field may include an indication of the BSS parameters change count. The common information field may include medium synchronization delay information (see FIG. 20). The common information field may include EML capabilities (see FIG. 21). The common information field may include MLD capabilities (see FIG. 22).”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Kneckt since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 25, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 24 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein performing a procedure to add or remove at least one link based on the update comprises updating a power management state of at least one link, based on the update.
However, Kneckt teaches wherein performing a procedure to add or remove at least one link based on the update comprises updating a power management state of at least one link, based on the update (Paragraph 171 teaches “The common information field may include a MAC address for the AP MLD. The common information field may include information for all link IDs. The common information field may include parameters or information for all links. For example, transmission power delta may be included. The common information field may include an indication of the BSS parameters change count. The common information field may include medium synchronization delay information (see FIG. 20). The common information field may include EML capabilities (see FIG. 21). The common information field may include MLD capabilities (see FIG. 22).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Kneckt since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 4, 11, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hwang and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0319924, Kim-B hereafter)
RE claims 4 and 19, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 15 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frame includes at least one field that indicates a presence of at least one other field that includes the at least one of the first limit or the second limit.
However, Kim-B teaches wherein the first frame includes at least one field that indicates a presence of at least one other field that includes the at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraph 509 a Multi-link Control Field may include a field defined as a ‘Common info Present’ field. “If the field is indicated as 1, when the STA requests information about other APs from the AP MLD, the Request element or/and Extended Request element meaning the same information request is included before the Per-STA Profile (x) element and transmitted do. Link specific information requested differently for each AP is indicated through the Request element or/and Extended Request element included in the Per-STA Profile (x) element.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Kim-B since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 11 and 23, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatuses of claims 10 and 22 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second frame includes at least one of: a flag indicating that there is an update to parameters of the apparatus or MLD with which the apparatus is affiliated with, a counter associated with the parameters of the apparatus or the MLD with which the apparatus is affiliated with, or a flag indicating that information related to the update is included in the second frame itself.
However, Kim-B teaches wherein the second frame includes at least one of: a flag indicating that there is an update to parameters of the apparatus or MLD with which the apparatus is affiliated with (Paragraphs 590-592, a critical update flag is used to indicate 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Kim-B since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 8, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hwang and further in view of Adachi et al. (US 2022/0110123, Adachi hereafter)
RE claim 8, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 10 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein processing the request comprises outputting, for transmission to the client, an indication the request is rejected if a number of links indicated in the request exceeds at least one of the first limit or the second limit.
However, Adachi teaches wherein processing the request comprises outputting, for transmission to the client, an indication the request is rejected if a number of links indicated in the request exceeds at least one of the first limit or the second limit (Paragraph 387 teaches “When the AP MLD does not permit the connection, the AP MLD notifies the STA MLD of the reason using the Status Code of the Association Response frame, FIG. 34 illustrates an example of the Status Code in the sixth embodiment. A code “DENTED_EXCEED_MAX_VALUE” is allocated to one of the values presently reserved, here eight, meaning rejection of the connection of the STA MLD which the primary and secondary links are in non-STR link relationship because the number of the STA MLD connections in non-STR link relationship exceeds the upper limit.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Adachi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 9, Kim in view of Hwang and further in view of Adachi discloses the apparatus of claim 10 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication comprises a status code indicating the request is rejected because the number of links indicated in the request exceeds the first limit (Paragraph 387 teaches “When the AP MLD does not permit the connection, the AP MLD notifies the STA MLD of the reason using the Status Code of the Association Response frame, FIG. 34 illustrates an example of the Status Code in the sixth embodiment. A code “DENTED_EXCEED_MAX_VALUE” is allocated to one of the values presently reserved, here eight, meaning rejection of the connection of the STA MLD which the primary and secondary links are in non-STR link relationship because the number of the STA MLD connections in non-STR link relationship exceeds the upper limit.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Adachi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 21, Kim in view of Hwang discloses the apparatus of claim 15 as set forth above. Kim in view of Hwang does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain an indication the request is rejected, wherein the indication comprises a status code indicating the request is rejected because a number of links indicated in the request exceeds the first limit.
However, Adachi teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain an indication the request is rejected, wherein the indication comprises a status code indicating the request is rejected because a number of links indicated in the request exceeds the first limit (Paragraph 387 teaches “When the AP MLD does not permit the connection, the AP MLD notifies the STA MLD of the reason using the Status Code of the Association Response frame, FIG. 34 illustrates an example of the Status Code in the sixth embodiment. A code “DENTED_EXCEED_MAX_VALUE” is allocated to one of the values presently reserved, here eight, meaning rejection of the connection of the STA MLD which the primary and secondary links are in non-STR link relationship because the number of the STA MLD connections in non-STR link relationship exceeds the upper limit.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kim in view of Hwang with the teachings of Adachi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claim 7, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest obtaining an indication that the client lacks support for the at least one of the first or second limits but still limiting the number of active links to the second limit.
RE claims 13 and 26, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest designating the most recently activated links, up to the second limit, as active if notified that the quantity of active links is exceeding the second limit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461