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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/06/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1, Applicant argues failed to teach claim limitation “determine whether to perform uplink reorder buffering for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device; and provide an indication to the AP wireless device of whether to perform uplink reorder buffering for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device”, that were previously addressed in FOA because “There is no mention of reorder buffering. No messages between the STAs and APs (e.g., which might require reorder buffering) are shown or described” (p9, 3rd para from the bottom).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees: “reorder buffering” was disclosed by Chu as cited in previous FOA.
For claim 16, Applicant argues “the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least "receive, from an
AP wireless device, multi-AP system information for a multi-AP system, indicating at least a multi-AP system identifier for the multi-AP system and AP identifier information for at least two AP wireless devices in the multi-AP system." because no system information, including any identifiers is received by y a non-AP
wireless device from an AP, as recited in claim 16.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The FIG in Slide 6 clearly shows Master AP and Slave APs receives Request/Response messages, and the Request/Response messages include identifiers of APs (Slide 7, 1st and 2nd bullets). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
For claim 11, Applicant arguments are moot due to new ground rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “… create an association response, wherein the association response is sent to the non-AP wireless device via the AP wireless device of the multi-AP system receive, …”. It appears obvious that “multi-AP system” should have been “multi-AP system;”.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)] as being anticipated by D2 (NPL dated 2/16/24, 15 pages, IEEE 802.11-19/1895r2, “Setup for Multi-AP coordination” IEEE draft, 1/16/20).
For claim 16, D2 discloses a non-access point wireless device (FIGs in slides 4-7, one of STA a-f, such as STA b) comprising: one or more antennas; a radio operably coupled to the one or more antennas; and a processor operably coupled to the radio (each STA inherently has one or more antennas; a radio coupled to the one or more antennas; and a processor operably coupled to the radio); wherein the non-AP wireless device is configured to:
receive, from an AP wireless device, multi-AP system information for a multi-AP system, indicating at least a multi-AP system identifier for the multi-AP system and AP identifier information for at least two AP wireless devices in the multi-AP system (Slides 6-7: the FIG in each slide clearly shows Master AP sends request including Slave AP’s identifier and Multi-AP group ID to each Slave AP and receives Response messages including slave AP identifiers and Multi-AP group ID, as disclosed by Slide 7, 1st bullet “Master AP sends Request frame to Slave APs - Assign Slave AP’s identifier in Multi-AP coordination – Assign Multi-AP group ID” and 2nd bullet “Slave AP sends Response frame to Master AP. …”);
provide a multi-AP association request to the AP wireless device (FIGs in slides 6-8 and the associated text: such as slide 8, 1st bullet “After phase 2, Multi-AP coordination set is configured by Master AP and Slave-APs”; and slide 7, 2nd bullet); and
receive a multi-AP association response from the AP wireless device, wherein the multi-AP association response for the non-AP wireless device accepts the multi-AP association request (FIGs in slides 6-8 and the associated text: Slide 8, 2nd bullet “Since the Master AP has acquired the STA’s information belonging to the Slave APs, the Master AP can communicate those STAs for the multi-AP scheme”; note that STAs are non-AP wireless devices).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 (NPL dated 2/16/24, 15 pages, IEEE 802.11-19/1895r2, “Setup for Multi-AP coordination” IEEE draft, 1/16/20) in view of OTERI (JP 2024045182 A), further in view of Chu (US 20230082395 A1).
For claim 1, D2 discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a processor configured to cause a network controller device (FIG. in Slide 6 shows M-AP/AP1 in view of p6, 1st bullet “The AP which initiates Multi-AP coordination is the Master AP”; note that each AP device has a processor) to:
establish a multi-access point (AP) system, including providing one or more multi-AP parameters for the multi-AP system (FIG. in Slide 6 that shows AP1-AP3 and associated stations STA a-f);
receive a request from an AP wireless device to join the multi-AP system (Slide 6-7 and the associated text and FIGs, e.g., a “Request” is received by AP2 or AP3 in the FIGs in Slide 6-7); and
provide a response to the AP wireless device accepting the request to join the multi-AP system (Slide 6-7 and the associated text and FIGs, e.g., a “Response” is provided by AP2 or AP3 in the FIGs and 3rd bullet “In this Phase 2, Master AP and Slave APs exchange information to configure Multi-AP coordination set”);
receive, from the AP wireless device, a multi-AP association request for a non-AP wireless device (Slide 8-10 and the associated text and FIGs. such as the FIG in Slide 10, e.g., Request NDPA and NDP is sent to non-AP wireless device STA b by M-AP and S-AP A); and
provide, to the AP wireless device, a multi-AP association response for the non-AP wireless device (Slide 8-10 and the associated text and FIGs. such as the FIG. in Slide 10, e.g., Response “NDP feedback” is sent from non-AP wireless device STA b to M-AP).
determine whether to perform uplink for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device (FIG. in slide 6 shows that AP devices communicating non-AP wireless device STAs in view of “Master AP selects neighboring Aps as Slave Aps in order to participating multi-AP coordination” (2nd bullet in Slide 6); in which both uplink and downlink with STAs are performed); and
provide an indication to the AP wireless device of whether to perform uplink for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device (FIG. in slide 6 shows non-AP wireless devices STAs in view of “participating multi-AP coordination” (2nd bullet in Slide 6); and Slide 9, 1st bullet “multi-AP sounding should be performed to send data frames by using transmission scheme …”).
D2 is silent but OTERI, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication specified by IEEE 802.11, discloses:
receive an association request from a non-AP wireless device via a first AP wireless device of the multi-AP system (“[00125] In an IEEE 802.11 system, a STA may send an association request to an AP and, if successful, may receive an association response from the AP indicating that the STA is a member of the BSS. In a multi-AP system, an AP may be influenced by multiple APs and may require some degree of association with each AP. The multi-AP association described herein may allow a single STA to discover and associate with multiple APs.” or “[00169] The non-AP STA may then send a frame, such as a multi-AP association request frame or a multi-AP service negotiation frame, to its primary AP. A multi-AP association request frame or a multi-AP service negotiation frame may include a multi-AP selection element that may indicate a request for a particular multi-AP service and/or a number of secondary APs.”); and
create an association response, wherein the association response is sent to the non-AP wireless device via the AP wireless device of the multi-AP system (“[00125] In an IEEE 802.11 system, a STA …, if successful, may receive an association response from the AP indicating that the STA is a member of the BSS. In a multi-AP system, an AP may be influenced by multiple APs and may require some degree of association with each AP. The multi-AP association described herein may allow a single STA to discover and associate with multiple APs.” Or “[00136] The APs 814a, 814b may then send a multi-AP association response frame 835a, 835b to the STA 802. …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of OTERI above to the apparatus by D2 to yield a predictable result of allowing each STA to be associated with multiple APs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and OTERI for the benefit of allowing each STA to be associated with multiple APs ([0125] of OTERI).
D2 in view of OTERI is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses using transmit buffering for traffic ([0021] “… the wireless network interface device is configured to negotiate a BA agreement for multiple links, where the BA agreement includes a managed scoreboard context and a managed reorder buffer, transmit frames according to the BA agreement …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the network controller device by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of ordering traffic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of ordering traffic ([0021] of Chu).
As to claim 3, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, D2 further discloses:
wherein the multi-AP association response for the non-AP wireless device comprises an acceptance of the multi-AP association request, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
store association information for the multi-AP association for the non-AP wireless device (Slide 4-10 and the associated text and FIGs. such as the FIG. in Slide 8, 2nd bullet “Since the Master AP has acquired the STA’s information belonging to the Slave APs, the Master AP can communicate those STAs for the multi-AP scheme.” And slide 7, 2nd bullet, “Slave AP sends Response frame to Master AP. - List of STAs associated with Slave AP: STA’s identifier and capability to participate in Multi-AP TX/RX scheme - Priority of STAs to participate in Multi-AP TX/RX scheme - The information of priority of STAs can be used when the Master AP has to involve the limited number of STAs due to Master AP’s antenna capability.” In view of the parent claim).
As to claim 5, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, D2 further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
determine whether to perform downlink for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device (Slide 4-10 and the associated text and FIGs: such as the FIG. in slide 6 shows non-AP wireless devices BBS 1-3 “participating multi-AP coordination” (2nd bullet in Slide 6); which may perform uplink and downlink with STAs); and
provide an indication to the AP wireless device of whether to perform downlink transmit for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device (Slide 4-10 and the associated text and FIGs: FIG. in slide 6 shows non-AP wireless devices STAs “participating multi-AP coordination” (2nd bullet in Slide 6); which may perform uplink and downlink with STAs).
Chu further discloses for traffic ([0081] “… The transmit buffer control per RA/TID controlled by the originator 402 …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of transmitting traffic according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of transmitting traffic ([0081] of Chu).
As to claim 6, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, and Chu further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
determine whether to perform one or more of encryption or decryption operations for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device ([0030] “FIG. 7 illustrates an overview flow diagram for generating an encrypted MAC protocol Data Unit (MPDU).” Or “[0098] … an encrypted QoS Data frame or a decrypted QoS Data frame. …”); and
provide an indication to the AP wireless device of whether to perform the one or more of encryption or decryption operations for the non-AP wireless device at the network controller device or the AP wireless device ([0098] “… the encrypted QoS Data frame or the decrypted QoS Data frame”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of enhancing security.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of enhancing security ([0098] of Chu).
As to claim 7, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, and is silent but Chu further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
configuring a traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping mode for a multi-AP association of the multi-AP system (“[0061] … per a Traffic Identifier (TID) of the A-MPDU 206. The transmit buffer control per RA/TID …“), wherein the TID to link mapping mode comprises one of:
a TID to link mapping mode in which at least some downlink and uplink TIDs can be communicated with any AP wireless device in the multi-AP system (FIGs. 1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them);
a TID to link mapping mode in which at least some uplink TIDs can be communicated with any AP wireless device in the multi-AP system and downlink TIDs can be communicated with a specific AP wireless device (FIGs. 1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them); or
a TID to link mapping mode in which TIDs can be mapped to links of multiple AP wireless devices in the multi-AP system (FIGs. 1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of transmitting traffic according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of transmitting traffic ([0061] of Chu).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 in view of OTERI and Chu, further in view of Choi (US 20150215867 A1).
As to claim 8, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, and is silent but Choi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
configure a listen interval parameter for the multi-AP system indicating how often to wake to receive beacon information for non-AP wireless devices in the multi-AP system (“[0153] The listen interval is used to signal, to the AP, how often an STA set in the power save mode wakes up and listens to a beacon frame (or beacon management frame). The listen interval is determined by the STA based on the traffic pattern, service type and capabilities of the STA. Accordingly, it is preferable for the STA to set the listen interval to a proper value according to the condition thereof and inform the AP of the set listen interval, rather than allowing the AP to inform of the listen interval. … In the sense that the listen interval indicates intervals at which the STA wakes up to receiver a beacon frame, the listen interval may be called wakeup interval”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Choi above to the wireless system by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of power saving according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of power saving ([0153] of Choi).
As to claim 9, D2 in view of OTERI discloses claim 1, and is silent but Choi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the network controller device to:
configure a maximum idle period parameter for the multi-AP system indicating a time period after which a non-AP wireless device may be disassociated from the multi-AP system if no frames are exchanged with the non-AP wireless device during the time period ([0153]-[0159], such as “[0158] The scaling factor used to determine the value of the listen interval may be a unified scaling factor which can be commonly applied to the BSS maximum idle period and the WNM-Sleep interval.”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Choi above to the wireless system by D2 in view of OTERI to yield a predictable result of power saving.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of OTERI and Chu for the benefit of power saving ([0153] of Choi).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 in view of OTERI and Chu further in view of Monajemi (US 20210195562A1).
As to claim 10, D2 in view of OTERI and Chu discloses claim 1, and is silent but Monajemi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
wherein a network connection between the network controller device and the AP wireless device comprises at least one of:
a wired network connection (“[[0054] An embodiment of a signaling process for exchanging communications between one or more APs 104h, 104a, and/or 104c may be as shown in FIG. 3. Signaling processes 300 can be conducted wirelessly or through wired connections between controllers 101a to 101b, between APs 104 and controllers 101, and/or APs 104, and vice versa.”);
a Wi-Fi Easy Mesh based network connection (“[0030] … wireless communications performed according to Wi-Fi standards developed by the IEEE 802.11 … Some aspects may additionally or alternatively involve wireless communications according to one or more other wireless communication standards, for example, and without limitation, other IEEE wireless communication standards”; note that Wi-Fi Easy Mesh is a standard in IEEE 802.11 series. For example, STRATER (US 20210203527 A1) discloses it in “[0065] Subsequent operations of the gateway apparatus 11 and extender 12 may depend on whether they are operating a proprietary mesh network solution such as CommScope HNC/HNE or a standard Easy Mesh MAP solution (modes of operation)”);
a neighbor awareness networking (NAN) based network connection; or an IEEE 802.11s based network connection (“[0030] Aspects herein are generally directed to wireless communications systems that can perform according to one or more wireless communications standards. For example, some aspects may involve wireless communications performed according to Wi-Fi standards developed by the IEEE 802.11, … Some aspects may additionally or alternatively involve wireless communications according to one or more other wireless communication standards, for example, and without limitation, other IEEE wireless communication standards, such as the IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11g, IEEE 802.11n, IEEE 802.11u, IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.11ad, IEEE 802.11af, IEEE 802.11 ah, and/or IEEE 802.11ay standards, Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) wireless communication standards, such as, Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi Direct, Wi-Fi Direct Services, Wireless Gigabit (WiGig), WiGig Display Extension (WDE), WiGig Bus Extension (WBE), WiGig Serial Extension (WSE) standards and/or standards developed by the WFA Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN) Task Group, Machine-Type Communications (MTC) standards such as those embodied in 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 23.887, 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 22.368, and/or 3GPP TS 23.682, and/or Near-Field Communication (NFC) standards such as standards developed by the NFC Forum, including any predecessors, revisions, progeny, and/or variants of any of the above.”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Monajemi above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of providing wireless connection according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and Chu for the benefit of providing wireless connection ([030] of Monajemi).
Claims 11, 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 in view of Chu (US 20230082395 A1).
For independent claim 11, D2 discloses a method performed by a first access point (AP) wireless device (M-AP/AP 1 in the FIG of Slide 6 and the associated text, such as Slide 6, 1st bullet “The AP which initiates Multi-AP coordination is the Master AP”), comprising:
scanning for one or more existing multi-AP systems (FIGs in slides 4-6 and the associated text; note that sending beacon/request to neighboring APs is scanning); and
establishing a new multi-AP system based at least in part on the scanning for one or more existing multi-AP systems (slides 4-6 and the associated text and FIGs, such as 3rd bullet of slide 6 “In this Phase 2, Master AP and Slave APs exchange information to configure multi-AP coordination set.”),
wherein the first AP wireless device acts as a network controller for the multi-AP system (Slide 6, 1st bullet “The AP which initiates Multi-AP coordination is the Master AP”).
D2 is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses wherein acting as the network controller for the multi-AP system comprises performing one or more of buffering, reordering ([0021] “… the wireless network interface device is configured to negotiate a BA agreement for multiple links, where the BA agreement includes a managed scoreboard context and a managed reorder buffer, transmit frames according to the BA agreement …”), decryption, or encryption (“[0098] … an encrypted QoS Data frame or a decrypted QoS Data frame. …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of ordering traffic.
As to claim 13, D2 view of Chu discloses claim 11, D2 further discloses:
establishing a multi-AP association with a non-AP wireless device (FIG. in Slide 10 shows multi-AP APs association with non-AP wireless devices STAs; and the text in Slide 10, such as 1st bullet “Master AP already knows the identifier of STA “c” which is associated with slave AP “A” from the result of setup for multi-AP coordination.”);
determining link mapping mode for the multi-AP association with the non-AP wireless device (FIG. in Slide 10 shows multi-AP APs association with non-AP wireless devices STAs; and the text in Slide 10, such as 1st bullet “Master AP already knows the identifier of STA “c” which is associated with slave AP “A” from the result of setup for multi-AP coordination.”)..
Chu further discloses a traffic identifier (TID) (“[0061] … reorder a Traffic Identifier (TID) of the A-MPDU 206. The transmit buffer control per RA/TID …“) and determining a device to perform one or more of uplink reorder buffering, uplink frame decryption, downlink transmit buffering, or downlink frame encryption for the multi-AP association with the non-AP wireless device, based at least in part on the TID to link mapping mode ([0021] “… the wireless network interface device is configured to negotiate a BA agreement for multiple links, where the BA agreement includes a managed scoreboard context and a managed reorder buffer, transmit frames according to the BA agreement …”).
The motivation of combining D2 and Chu is the same as stated in the parent claim.
As to claim 17, D2 discloses claim 16, and is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
receive information configuring a traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping mode in which at least some downlink and uplink TIDs can be communicated with any AP wireless device in the multi-AP system (“[0061] … per a Traffic Identifier (TID) of the A-MPDU 206. The transmit buffer control per RA/TID …“ and FIGs.1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of transmitting traffic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and Chu for the benefit of transmitting traffic ([0061] of Chu).
As to claim 18, D2 discloses claim 16, and is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
receive information configuring a traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping mode in which one or more uplink TIDs can be communicated with any AP wireless device in the multi-AP system and one or more downlink TIDs can be communicated with a specific AP wireless device (“[0061] … per a Traffic Identifier (TID) of the A-MPDU 206. The transmit buffer control per RA/TID …“ and FIGs.1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of transmitting traffic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and Chu for the benefit of transmitting traffic ([0061] of Chu).
As to claim 19, D2 discloses claim 16, and is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
receive information configuring a traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping mode in which TIDs can be mapped to links of multiple AP wireless devices in the multi-AP system (“[0061] … per a Traffic Identifier (TID) of the A-MPDU 206. The transmit buffer control per RA/TID …“ and FIGs.1-2 show multi-AP system communicating with STAs with links between them). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of transmitting traffic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and Chu for the benefit of transmitting traffic ([0061] of Chu).
As to claim 20, D2 discloses claim 16, D2 further discloses:
establish at least a first wireless link with a first AP device in the multi-AP system (FIG in Slide 8, the “wireless link” between AP1 and AP2);
establish at least a second wireless link with a second AP device in the multi-AP system (FIG in Slide 8, the “wireless link” between AP1 and AP3); and
communicate wireless data using the first wireless link and the second wireless link (FIG in Slide 8, wherein wireless data are communicated using both wireless links).
D2 is silent but Chu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses: associating multi-AP system level sequence numbering with the wireless data (“[0049] … frames of the A-MPDU or the BA Request frames have a sequence number (SN) …”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Chu above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of communicating data using wireless links according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 and Chu for the benefit of communicating data using wireless links ([0049] of Chu).
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D2 in view of Chu, further in view of Monajemi (US 20210195562A1).
As to claim 12, D2 in view of Chu discloses claim 11, D2 further discloses:
receiving a request from a second AP wireless device to join the multi-AP system FIG. in Slide 6, wherein a “Request” is received by AP2 or AP3); and
providing a response to the second AP wireless device accepting the request to join the multi-AP system (FIG. in Slide 6, wherein a “Response” is provided by AP2 or AP3 in view of 2nd bullet and 3rd bullet “Master AP and Slave Aps exchange information to configure Multi-AP coordination set”).
wherein a network connection between the first AP wireless device and the second AP wireless device comprises:
D2 in view of Chu is silent but Monajemi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses: wherein a network connection between the first AP wireless device and the second AP wireless device comprises:
a wired network connection (“[0054] An embodiment of a signaling process for exchanging communications between one or more APs 104h, 104a, and/or 104c may be as shown in FIG. 3. Signaling processes 300 can be conducted wirelessly or through wired connections between controllers 101a to 101b, between APs 104 and controllers 101, and/or APs 104, and vice versa.”);
a Wi-Fi Easy Mesh based network connection (“[0030] … wireless communications performed according to Wi-Fi standards developed by the IEEE 802.11 … Some aspects may additionally or alternatively involve wireless communications according to one or more other wireless communication standards, for example, and without limitation, other IEEE wireless communication standards”; note that Wi-Fi Easy Mesh is a standard in IEEE 802.11 series. For example, STRATER (US 20210203527 A1) discloses it in “[0065] Subsequent operations of the gateway apparatus 11 and extender 12 may depend on whether they are operating a proprietary mesh network solution such as CommScope HNC/HNE or a standard Easy Mesh MAP solution (modes of operation)”);
a neighbor awareness networking (NAN) based network connection; or an IEEE 802.11s based network connection (“[0030] Aspects herein are generally directed to wireless communications systems that can perform according to one or more wireless communications standards. For example, some aspects may involve wireless communications performed according to Wi-Fi standards developed by the IEEE 802.11, … Some aspects may additionally or alternatively involve wireless communications according to one or more other wireless communication standards, for example, and without limitation, other IEEE wireless communication standards, such as the IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11g, IEEE 802.11n, IEEE 802.11u, IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.11ad, IEEE 802.11af, IEEE 802.11 ah, and/or IEEE 802.11ay standards, Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) wireless communication standards, such as, Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi Direct, Wi-Fi Direct Services, Wireless Gigabit (WiGig), WiGig Display Extension (WDE), WiGig Bus Extension (WBE), WiGig Serial Extension (WSE) standards and/or standards developed by the WFA Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN) Task Group, Machine-Type Communications (MTC) standards such as those embodied in 3GPP Technical Report (TR) 23.887, 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 22.368, and/or 3GPP TS 23.682, and/or Near-Field Communication (NFC) standards such as standards developed by the NFC Forum, including any predecessors, revisions, progeny, and/or variants of any of the above.”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Monajemi above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of providing wireless connection according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of Chu and Monajemi for the benefit of providing wireless connection ([0030] of Monajemi).
As to claim 14, D2 in view of Chu discloses claim 11, D2 further discloses:
a multi-AP identifier for the multi-AP system (FIG. in Slide 6 shows a multi-AP system having 3 APs, with Master AP (M-AP) as an identifier of the multi-AP system);
an AP identifier for each AP wireless device in the multi-AP system (AP identifiers AP1-AP3 for wireless devices in the multi-AP system); and
a link identifier for each link associated with each AP wireless device in the multi-AP system (Slide 3, last bullet “… an AP establishes a link with neighboring AP and knows information about STA associated with the neighboring AP.”).
D2 in view of Chu is silent but Monajemi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses a reduced neighbor report (RNR) for the multi-AP system indicating the above information are included in the RNR (“[0026] In a third situation, an AP can receive a Neighbor Report (NR) or a Reduced Neighbor Report (RNR) from the other AP. The NR or RNR elements are intended for client roaming and contain less information than beacon reports”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Monajemi above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of providing simplified report according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of Chu and Monajemi for the benefit of simplified report ([0026] of Monajemi).
As to claim 15, D2 in view of Chu discloses claim 11, and is silent but Monajemi, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses:
receiving a probe request from a non-AP wireless device (“[0082] In response to the request to associate as a client, AP 2d 104h may then send a next signal 312 back to AP 104a.”);
determining whether the probe request includes a multi-AP element (“[0082] ... This signal 312 may include information about the first AP 2d 104h which is received by AP 104a, in stage 612.” In view of FIGs. 1A, 1b, 6A and 6B, which show a multi-AP system);
determining whether the probe request includes a multi-link device element (“[0082] ... This signal 312 may include information about the first AP 2d 104h which is received by AP 104a, in stage 612.” In view of FIGs. 1A, 1b, 6A and 6B, which show a multi-AP system);
determining which multi-AP system information to provide in response to the probe request based at least in part on whether the probe request includes a multi-AP element and whether the probe request includes a multi-link device element (“[0082] In response to the request to associate as a client, AP 2d 104h may then send a next signal 312 back to AP 104a. This signal 312 may include information about the first AP 2d 104h which is received by AP 104a, in stage 612. The information provided may include the information in data structure 404 as described in conjunction with FIG. 4A”); and
provide the determined multi-AP system information in a probe response (“[0082] In response to the request to associate as a client, AP 2d 104h may then send a next signal 312 back to AP 104a. This signal 312 may include information about the first AP 2d 104h which is received by AP 104a, in stage 612. The information provided may include the information in data structure 404 as described in conjunction with FIG. 4A”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Monajemi above to the wireless system by D2 to yield a predictable result of providing simplified report according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D2 in view of Chu and Monajemi for the benefit of simplified report ([0026] of Monajemi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462