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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Objection to Claim 18.
35 USC 112 Rejection to Claims 4, 10, 16 and 6, 12, 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Patil does not disclose “determining at least two TDLS DR frames” [Remarks pg. 11]. Examiner respectively disagrees. As mentioned in the previous office action Patil discloses multiple TDLS DR frames with different IDs based on the multiple APs [par. 0163]. Consequently, since Patil discloses the limitations as claimed, the claims remain rejected.
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 (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 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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patil (US 20220124857 A1, see also 63/094,684).
Regarding claim 1, Patil discloses a direct link setup method [fig. 20, see also ‘684 fig. 20], applied to a first device [fig. 20 no. 304b], wherein the first device comprises one or more stations STAs (STA3, 4 [fig. 20 no. 304b]), the first device is connected to a third device [fig. 20 no. 302], the third device comprises a plurality of access points APs [fig. 20 no. 110a, b], a second device [fig. 20 no. 304a] is connected to the third device, the second device comprises a plurality of STAs [fig. 20 no. 120a, b], and the method comprises:
determining at least two tunneled direct-link setup (TDLS) discovery request frames (The non-AP MLD transmits more than one TDLS Discovery Request frames [par. 0163, see also ‘684 par. 0148]), wherein at least one of the at least two TDLS discovery request frames includes an identifier field indicating an AP in the third device (Link ID IE includes BSSID (i.e., ID field indicating an AP in the third device) [par. 0149, fig. 6, par. 0154, 081, 093]), and different TDLS discovery request frames one-to-one correspond to different APs in the third device (BSSIDs of APs (i.e., correspond one-to-one) [par. 0163]); and
sending the at least two TDLS discovery request frames [fig. 20 no. 2002, par. 0163].
Regarding claim 7, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Patil further discloses a first device [fig. 20 no. 304b], wherein the first device comprises one or more stations STAs (STA3, 4 [fig. 20 no. 304b]), the first device is connected to a third device [fig. 20 no. 302], the third device comprises a plurality of access points APs [fig. 20 no. 110a, b], a second device [fig. 20 no. 304a] is connected to the third device, the second device comprises a plurality of STAs [fig. 20 no. 120a, b], and the first device [fig. 21 no. 2102, par. 0046] comprising: a memory storage [fig. 21 no. 2112] including instructions [fig. 21 no. 2114-2118]; and one or more processors in communication with the memory [fig. 21 no. 2104].
Regarding claim 13, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Patil further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media [fig. 21 no. 2112] storing computer instructions [fig. 21 no. 2114-2118], wherein the non-transitory computer-readable media applied in a first device [fig. 21 no. 2102, par. 0046].
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Patil discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Patil further discloses:
wherein the determining the at least two TDLS discovery request frames that includes the identifier field includes determining at least two TDLS discovery request frames that includes the identifier field that is a basic service set identifier (BSSID), and the BSSID is carried in a link identifier element field of the at least two TDLS discovery request frames (Link ID IE includes BSSID (i.e., ID field indicating an AP in the third device) [par. 0149, 163, fig. 6 no. 6, par. 0154, 081, 093]).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, Patil discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Patil further discloses:
wherein the determining the at least two TDLS discovery request frames includes determining the at least two TDLS discovery request frames include a multi-link element field, the multi-link element field includes a type subfield, and the type subfield indicates tunneled direct-link setup (ML IE IDs specific links (i.e., “type” subfield indicates TDLS [par. 0148-149, 157, fig. 19, ‘684 par. 0133]).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Patil discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Patil further discloses:
wherein the determining the at least two TDLS discovery request frames includes determining the at least two TDLS discovery request frames includes a multi-link element field, the multi-link element field includes an MLD MAC address field, and the MLD MAC address field indicates a MAC address of the third device (ML element carries the AP MLD MAC Address and the TA field is set to the MAC address of the first device, where the first device is the AP MLD [par. 0087, ‘684 par. 0071]).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Patil discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Patil further discloses:
further comprising receiving, by the first device, a TDLS discovery response frame fed back by a STA that is associated with the AP of the third device and that is in the plurality of STAs of the second device [fig. 20 no. 2006, 2010].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil ‘857 (see also ‘684) as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 respectively, and further in view of Patil (‘684).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Patil discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Patil ‘857 discloses the limitation in its entirety [Patil ‘857 par. 0087], not everything is explicitly disclosed in Patil ‘684. Nevertheless, Patil ‘857 and ‘684 disclose wherein the method further comprises: binding a MAC address of the third device to a TDLS peer (STAs use MAC addresses (non-AP and AP) to communicate through the AP [‘684 par. 0071]) and as discussed above. However, the AP MLD MAC address section of Patil ‘684 does not explicitly disclose to a TDLS peer key TPK. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by the TPK section of Patil ‘684.
In the same field of endeavor, Patil ‘684 discloses:
to a TDLS peer key TPK (The TDLS session uses non-AP MLDs (i.e., peers) during TPK [‘684 par. 0068, 78-79]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patil ‘684 with Patil ‘684. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of performing a TPK handshake and encryption key generation for the TDLS session [Patil ‘684 par. 0078].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights