DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on October 17, 2023, having claims 1-5 and 30-38 (claims 6-29 were cancelled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 36-40 and 149-150 recited in lines 3-4 of page 10 of the specification are not found on Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “Multi-Link Device, MLD” must be written as “Multi-Link Device (MLD)” without commas to make it clear that the succeeding acronym matches the preceding words.
The word AP must be defined as “Access Point (AP)” the first time it is recited in the abstract. This affects the words “non-AP” and “AP.”
The acronym ML must be defined as “Multi-Link (ML)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
The acronym STA must be defined as “Station (STA)” the first time it is recited in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-5 and 30-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “non-access point, non-AP” recited in line 2 of claim 1 must be written as “non-access point (non-AP)” to make it clear that the acronym and the preceding words are connected without using commas to separate them.
The phrase “multi-link device, MLD” recited in line 2 of claim 1 must be written as “multi-link device (MLD)” to make it clear that the acronym and the preceding words are connected without using commas to separate them.
The acronym AP must be defined as “access point (AP)” the first time it is recited in claim 1.
The acronym MLD must be written as “multi-link device (MLD)” the first time it is recited in claim 1.
The acronym ML must be written as “multi-link (ML)” the first time it is recited in claim 1.
The acronym AP must be defined as “access point (AP)” the first time it is recited in claim 2.
The acronym MLD must be written as “multi-link device (MLD)” the first time it is recited in claim 2.
The acronym ML must be written as “multi-link (ML)” the first time it is recited in claim 2.
The word “Claim” recited in claims 2-5 and 32 must be written in lowercase letters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 32-33, and 35-36 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the multiple accepted links" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 36 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the multiple accepted links" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the multiple accepted links" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 35 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 and 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2021/0314846 A1).
For claims 1 and 30-31, Chu discloses a communication method in a wireless network (Fig 1, multi-link communications system 100), comprising at a non-access point, non-AP multi-link device, MLD (Fig 1, STA MLD 104-3 is a non-AP MLD), having multiple affiliated non-AP stations (Fig 1, stations 120-1, 120-2, and 120-3 are affiliated with non-AP MLD 104-3):
sending, by a reporting affiliated non-AP station to an AP MLD, a ML association request frame indicating links with affiliated APs of the AP MLD that are requested for ML setup ([0126] the non-AP (STA) MLD sends an association frame to the AP MLD, wherein the association request frame comprises requested link IDs for ML setup),
receiving, by the reporting affiliated non-AP station from the AP MLD, a ML association response frame indicating links that are accepted for ML setup, wherein the accepted links are a subset of the requested links ([0126] the AP MLD sends an association response frame to the non-AP (STA) MLD, wherein the association response frame comprises acceptance of all requested links or a subset of the requested links).
For claims 2 and 37-38, Chu discloses a communication method in a wireless network (Fig 1, multi-link communications system 100), comprising at an access point, AP multi-link device, MLD (Fig 1, AP MLD 102), having multiple affiliated APs (Fig 1, APs 110-1, 110-2, and 110-3 are affiliated with AP MLD 102):
receiving, from a reporting affiliated non-AP station of a non-AP MLD, a ML association request frame indicating links with affiliated APs of the AP MLD that are requested for ML setup ([0126] the non-AP (STA) MLD sends an association frame to the AP MLD, wherein the association request frame comprises requested link IDs for ML setup), and
sending, to the reporting affiliated non-AP station, a ML association response frame indicating links that are accepted for ML setup, wherein the accepted links are a subset of the requested links ([0126] the AP MLD sends an association response frame comprising acceptance of all requested links or a subset of the requested links).
For claim 3, Chu discloses at the AP MLD, determining acceptable links for ML setup from the requested setup links ([0126] the AP MLD sends an association response frame comprising acceptance of all requested links or a subset of the requested links).
For claims 4 and 32-33, Chu discloses comprising exchanging frames between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD over the multiple accepted links ([0054] exchange of frames between the non-AP (STA) MLD and the AP MLD).
For claims 5 and 34-36, discloses the ML association request frame indicates a first requested link between the reporting affiliated non-AP station and a reporting affiliated AP addressee of the ML association request frame and additional requested links between reported affiliated non-AP stations and reported affiliated APs of the AP MLD, wherein ML association response frame accepts the first requested link and a subset of the additional requested links with reported affiliated APs ([0126] the association request frame comprises the link IDs of the reporting STA(s) and the reported AP, and the link of the other STAs [0125], wherein the association response frame [0126] comprises acceptance of all requested link IDs or a subset of the requested link IDs).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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 at 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 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471