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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “UMA” instead of “UMAC.”
Claim 9 recites “mule” instead of “muti.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 20250351179 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou discloses:
“A method, comprising: providing a multi-link device (MLD) architecture, comprising an Upper media access control (UMAC) layer; causing the UMAC to send a message to a Lower media access control (LMAC) that is not collocated on a same device as the UMAC.” (See Fig. 18. Also note paragraph 1008 which states “Separated units as illustrated may or may not be physically separated” and paragraph 1009 which states “In addition, various functional units described in various embodiments of the disclosure can be integrated into one processing unit or can be present as a number of physically separated units, and two or more units can be integrated into one.”)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Viger (US 20240291763 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses:
“A multi-link device (MLD) architecture, comprising … an Upper media access control (UMAC) device; and a plurality of Lower media access control (LMAC) devices physically separated from each other and from the UMAC device,” (See Fig. 18. Also note paragraph 1008 which states “Separated units as illustrated may or may not be physically separated” and paragraph 1009 which states “In addition, various functional units described in various embodiments of the disclosure can be integrated into one processing unit or can be present as a number of physically separated units, and two or more units can be integrated into one.”)
Zhou does not explicitly disclose “a common memory… wherein the UMAC device and the plurality of LMAC devices have access to the common memory.”
However, Viger discloses the missing feature “a common memory… wherein the UMAC device and the plurality of LMAC devices have access to the common memory.” (Note that common scoreboard 382 in Fig. 3 is part of the UMAC but also connected to the LMACs.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Viger, to modify the MLDs as disclosed by Zhou, to have a memory that both the UMAC and LMAC have access to as disclosed by Viger. The motivation for doing so is that it allows improved communication between the LMACs and UMAC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Viger to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Viger discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein the UMAC and LMAC devices are connected by a wireless or a wired/optical medium.” (¶ [0100]: “As illustrated in FIG. 4, in a multi-AP architecture, a coordinator of multiple APs can be an independent device, and the APs are connected to the coordinator in a wired or wireless manner.”)
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Viger discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein the UMAC is a first UMAC and the plurality of LMACs are a first plurality of LMACs, wherein the first UMA and the first plurality of LMACs are associated with an access point MLD, and wherein the MLD architecture further comprises a STA MLD device comprising a second UMAC and a second plurality of LMACs in communication with the second UMAC.” (See Fig. 18.)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Viger (US 20240291763 A1) and further in view of Barrett (US 20160057055 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Viger discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou in view of Viger do not disclose “wherein a first LMAC of the second plurality of LMACs manages a non-WiFi link in communication with the access point MLD.”
However, Barrett discloses the missing feature “wherein a first LMAC of the second plurality of LMACs manages a non-WiFi link in communication with the access point MLD.” (¶ [0075]: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example protocol stack 260 suitable for implementation by the UE 24, by the eNB 20 illustrated in FIG. 1A and by the MeNB 80 illustrated in FIG. 1D and FIG. 1G… In contrast to a typical e-UTRA protocol stack, the protocol stack 260 includes an upper LTE MAC layer 262 and a lower LTE MAC layer 264. The protocol stack 260 includes the IEEE 802.11 PHY layer 212 and the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer 242 to facilitate WLAN communications.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou, Viger, and Barrett to modify LMACs as disclosed by Zhou, to include a non-WiFi LMAC as disclosed by Barrett. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Viger and Barrett to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Viger and Barrett discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein a second LMAC of the second plurality of LMACs manages a WiFi link in communication with the access point MLD.” (¶ [0093]: “In embodiments of the disclosure, the “protocol” can refer to a communication standard protocol, and can include, for example, a WiFi protocol, and a related protocol applied to a future WiFi communication system, which is not limited in the disclosure.”)
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Barrett (US 20160057055 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses:
“A mule-link device (MLD) architecture, comprising: an Upper media access control (UMAC); and a plurality of Lower media access control (LMAC) in communication with the UMAC, the plurality of LMACs comprising: a first LMAC configured to manage a Wi-Fi transceiver; and a second LMAC configured to manage a … link.” (See Fig. 18.)
Zhou does not explicitly disclose “a non-Wi-fi link.”
However, Barrett discloses the missing feature “a non-Wi-fi link.” (¶ [0075]: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example protocol stack 260 suitable for implementation by the UE 24, by the eNB 20 illustrated in FIG. 1A and by the MeNB 80 illustrated in FIG. 1D and FIG. 1G… In contrast to a typical e-UTRA protocol stack, the protocol stack 260 includes an upper LTE MAC layer 262 and a lower LTE MAC layer 264. The protocol stack 260 includes the IEEE 802.11 PHY layer 212 and the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer 242 to facilitate WLAN communications.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Barrett to modify LMACs as disclosed by Zhou, to include a non-WiFi LMAC as disclosed by Barrett. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Barrett to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou in view of Barrett discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou does not explicitly disclose “wherein the non-Wi-Fi link is a cellular link.”
However, Barrett discloses the missing feature “wherein the non-Wi-Fi link is a cellular link.” (¶ [0075]: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example protocol stack 260 suitable for implementation by the UE 24, by the eNB 20 illustrated in FIG. 1A and by the MeNB 80 illustrated in FIG. 1D and FIG. 1G… In contrast to a typical e-UTRA protocol stack, the protocol stack 260 includes an upper LTE MAC layer 262 and a lower LTE MAC layer 264. The protocol stack 260 includes the IEEE 802.11 PHY layer 212 and the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer 242 to facilitate WLAN communications.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Barrett to modify LMACs as disclosed by Zhou, to include a cellular link as disclosed by Barrett. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Barrett to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou in view of Barrett discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein the UMAC is not collocated with the plurality of LMACs.” (Note paragraph 1008 which states “Separated units as illustrated may or may not be physically separated” and paragraph 1009 which states “In addition, various functional units described in various embodiments of the disclosure can be integrated into one processing unit or can be present as a number of physically separated units, and two or more units can be integrated into one.”)
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Barrett discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein the non-WiFi link is an Ethernet link.” (¶ [0076]: “The AP is mainly used for connecting various wireless network clients together and then connecting the wireless network to an Ethernet.”)
Regarding claim 16, Zhou in view of Barrett discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou further discloses “wherein the plurality of LMACs comprises at least three LMACs.” (¶ [0095]: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, three links are set up between the AP MLD and the non-AP MLD on 2.4 GHZ, 5 GHZ, and 6 GHZ, which are referred to as link 1, link 2, and link 3 respectively, and the three links can work at the same time.”)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Jang (US 20260006667 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Zhou does not explicitly disclose “wherein the LMAC is associated with a non-MLD device.”
However, Jang discloses the missing feature “wherein the LMAC is associated with a non-MLD device.” (¶ [0153]: “Each affiliated AP (e.g., AP 1, . . . , AP n) may provide upper MAC sublayer functionality for non-MLD data frames (e.g., traffic transmitted and received with non-MLD STAs, group-addressed MLD traffic, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Zhou and Jang to modify technique as disclosed by Zhou, to be used with non-MLD-STAs as disclosed by Jang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Jang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 12-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would 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:
Regarding claim 3, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Viger (US 20240291763 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou in view of Viger does not disclose “wherein communications between the UMAC device and the plurality of LMAC devices include UMAC/LMAC frames that contain packet references instead of bit-based packets.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 3 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 4-5 depend on claim 3 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence.
Regarding claim 12, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Barrett (US 20160057055 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou in view of Barrett does not disclose “wherein the UMAC communicates with the LMAC over a wired connection using packet references instead of bit-based packets.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 12 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 13, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Barrett (US 20160057055 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou in view of Barrett does not disclose “wherein the second LMAC is contained within an emulator that includes a STA MLD emulator..” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 13 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 14, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) in view of Barrett (US 20160057055 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou in view of Barrett does not disclose “wherein traffic on a link is directed to the STA MLD emulator, which acts as a virtual STA device configured to provide a bridge for the non-WiFi link.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 14 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 19, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou does not disclose “wherein the message is provided from the UMAC to the LMAC via an encapsulator.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 19 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 20, of the closest prior arts Zhou (US 20250351179 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Zhou does not disclose “wherein the message is provided from the UMAC to the LMAC via station (STA) emulator.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 20 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412