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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 1: reference 155. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-11 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 9 recites the limitation “the roaming recommendation list.” While claim 1 recites “a recommendation list”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 9.
Claims 10-11 are indefinite based on their respective dependencies on claim 9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 limits the multi-link roaming logic to being configured to “generate an objective function associated with the network device.” Claim 7 seeks to further limit the multi-link roaming logic as being configured to “receive the objective function from the network device.”
To one having ordinary skill in the art, it is unclear how the multi-link roaming logic could both generate, and simultaneously receive from the network device, the same objective function. Therefore, claim 7 cannot include all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-7, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Homchaudhuri et al. US PUB 20220337338 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Homchaudhuri teaches a device [par. 128; fig. 12: 1205], comprising:
a processor [par. 128; fig. 12: 1240];
at least one wireless transceiver [par. 128; fig. 12: 1215 and 1225] configured to provide access to a network [par. 2; wireless network]; and
a memory [par. 128; fig. 12: 1230] communicatively coupled [par. 128; fig. 12: 1245] to the processor [par. 128; fig. 12: 1235], wherein the memory comprises a multi-link roaming logic [par. 113; fig. 10: 1035, fig. 11: 1135; multi-link operations manager] that is configured to:
indicate support for multi-link operations to a network device [par. 113; transceiver configured to support communicating with AP’s (network device) according to selected mode of MLO];
receive a response from the network device indicating multi-link capabilities [par. 113; the application manager supports a means for determining connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1410];
develop a recommendation list for the network device [par 145; a composite metric based on congestion metrics… selecting the mode of the MLO based on the composite metric. See also fig. 14: 1425, 1430, 1435];
evaluate one or more network conditions [par. 113; metric manager configured to support means for determining network metric. See also fig. 14: 1440]; and
generate an objective function associated with the network device [par. 143; method may include selecting a mode of MLO based on network metric and connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1415].
Regarding claim 2, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the multi-link roaming logic [par. 113; fig. 10: 1035, fig. 11: 1135; multi-link operations manager] is further configured to determine that a roaming recommendation is required [par. 63; use… metrics when determining… whether to initiate or tear down MLO].
Regarding claim 3, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the determination of the roaming recommendation is based on receiving a request for a recommendation [par 87; the operational states of the STA may change due to internal triggers, such as an application requesting a change, or based on a connection parameter].
Regarding claim 4, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the request for a roaming recommendation is received from the network device [par. 63; Initiating MLO may be triggered by roaming from a non-MLO AP to an MLO AP. Turning off MLO may be triggered by the opposite change].
Regarding claim 5, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the determination of the roaming recommendation based on a recommendation event occurring [par. 64; a changing condition].
Regarding claim 6, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the roaming recommendation event [par. 64; a changing condition] is detecting a change in a movement of the network device [par. 64; triggered by a changing condition (e.g. … moving locations)].
Regarding claim 7, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the multi-link roaming logic is configured to generate an objective function by receiving it from the network device [par. 63; Initiating MLO may be triggered by roaming from a non-MLO AP to an MLO AP. Turning off MLO may be triggered by the opposite change].
Regarding claim 14, Homchaudhuri teaches a device [par. 128; fig. 12: 1205], comprising:
a processor [par. 128; fig. 12: 1240];
at least one network interface [par. 2; a wireless device] configured to provide access to a network [par. 2; wireless network]; and
a memory [par. 128; fig. 12: 1230] communicatively coupled [par. 128; fig. 12: 1245] to the processor [par. 128; fig. 12: 1235], wherein the memory comprises
a multi-link roaming logic [par. 113; fig. 10: 1035, fig. 11: 1135; multi-link operations manager] that is configured to:
receive an indication for multi-link operations from a network device [par. 113; the application manager supports a means for determining connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1410];
transmit a response indicating multi-link capabilities [par. 113; transceiver configured to support communicating with AP’s (network device) according to selected mode of MLO];
generate an objective function [par. 143; selecting a mode of MLO based on network metric and connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1415];
transmit the objective function to the network device [par. 143; communicating with the one or more AP’s according to the selected mode of multi-link operations];
request a roaming recommendation [par 87; the operational states of the STA may change due to internal triggers, such as an application requesting a change, or based on a connection parameter]; and
receive a roaming recommendation [par 145; a composite metric based on congestion metrics… selecting the mode of the MLO based on the composite metric. See also fig. 14: 1425, 1430, 1435].
Regarding claim 17, Homchaudhuri teaches the device of claim 14, wherein the objective function is configured to indicate if roaming recommendation should prioritize multi-link operations or single-link operations [par 146; the method may include selecting the single-link mode of the MLO when the composite metric is less than a composite threshold (and multi-link mode when more than). See also fig. 14: 1425, 1430, 1435].
Regarding claim 20, Homchaudhuri teaches a method of managing multi-link wireless network connections, comprising:
indicating support for multi-link operations to a network device [par. 113; transceiver configured to support communicating with AP’s (network device) according to selected mode of MLO];
receiving a response from the network device indicating multi-link capabilities [par. 113; the application manager supports a means for determining connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1410];
developing a recommendation list for the network device [par. 143; selecting a mode of MLO based on the network metric and connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1405, 1410, 1415];
evaluating one or more network conditions [par. 113; metric manager configured to support means for determining network metric. See also fig. 14: 1440];
receiving an objective function from the network device [par. 143; method may include selecting a mode of MLO based on network metric and connection parameter. See also fig. 14: 1415]; and
modifying one or more recommendations provided from the recommendation list in response to the received objective function [par 145; a composite metric based on congestion metrics… selecting the mode of the MLO based on the composite metric. See also fig. 14: 1425, 1430, 1435].
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 8-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri et al. US PUB 20220337338 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho et al. US PUB 20210266998 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above
but does not particularly disclose wherein indicating support for multi-link operations occurs by modifying an extended capabilities element within a beacon frame.
However, Ho further discloses wherein indicating support for multi-link operation occurs by modifying an extended capabilities element within a beacon frame [par. 29; transmitting…management frames… include ML SSID information… each beacon frame may carry ML SSID information indicating an SSID assigned to the AP MLD].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teaching of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since multi-link SSID information caried in management frames (beacon/response) may help facilitate or streamline the process of establishing multiple communication links between a STA MLD and an AP MLD [par. 30; lines 12-16].
Regarding claim 9, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the
However, Ho further discloses wherein the
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since choosing to prioritize [par. 30] association with multi-link APs allows a multi-link STA to take advantage of higher throughputs [par. 30].
Regarding claim 10, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the weighted target access point (AP) list is developed based on one or more criteria.
However, Ho further discloses wherein the weighted target access point (AP) list is developed based on one or more criteria [par. 30; higher throughput].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since choosing to prioritize [par. 30] association with multi-link APs allows a multi-link STA to take advantage of higher throughputs [par. 30].
Regarding claim 11, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more criteria comprises at least one of: link reliability, maximized throughput roaming latency, band constraints, frame jitter constraints, or frame delay constraints.
However, Ho further discloses wherein the one or more criteria comprises at least one of: link reliability, maximized throughput [par. 30; higher throughputs], roaming latency, band constraints, frame jitter constraints, or frame delay constraints.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since choosing to prioritize [par. 30] association with multi-link APs allows a multi-link STA to take advantage of higher throughputs [par. 30].
Regarding claim 12, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the objective function is configured to indicate one or more roaming strategies.
However, Ho further discloses wherein the objective function is configured to
indicate one or more roaming strategies [par. 15; obtaining a multi-link indication of the second wireless communication device based, at least in part, on the first SSID, the multi-link indication indicating whether the second wireless communication device is capable of link aggregation, and selectively associating with the second wireless communication device based on the obtained multi-link indication. See also par. 52; enhances roaming between ML and legacy AP’s].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since having one or more roaming strategies such as selectively associating with other wireless communication devices may enable a user with a multi-link capable device to have and enhanced user experience when roaming between multi-link and legacy APs [par. 52].
Regarding claim 13, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more roaming strategies are associated with a selection of links and access points during a roaming process.
However, Ho further discloses wherein the one or more roaming strategies are associated with a selection of links and access points during a roaming process [par. 28; various link aggregation techniques that may be used to aggregate transmissions across multiple communication links. See also Abstract; multi-link indication… selectively associate with APs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teaching of Ho since roaming strategies associated with a selection of links and access points during a roaming process as described may facilitate or streamline the process of establishing multiple communication links between a STA MLD and an AP MLD [par. 30]. Further, having one or more roaming strategies such as selectively associating with other wireless communication devices may enable a user with a multi-link capable device to have and enhanced user experience when roaming between multi-link and legacy APs [par. 52].
Regarding claim 19, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein indicating multi-link capabilities occurs by modifying an extended capabilities element within a response frame.
However, Ho further discloses wherein indicating multi-link capabilities occurs by modifying an extended capabilities element within a response frame [par. 65; The MLO information fields may be any feasible information elements or fields in the management frame that include ML SSID information].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Ho since sending ML SSID information in management frames may help facilitate or streamline the process of establishing multiple connection links between multi-link devices (MLD) [par. 30].
Claims 15-16 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri et al. US PUB 20220337338 A1 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Smith et al. US PUB 20220225200 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the roaming recommendation is based on at least the objective function.
However, Smith further discloses wherein the roaming recommendation is based on at least the objective function [par. 94; generates a ranked list of neighboring AP’s to be sent to client].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teaching of Smith since having a ranked list of network devices [par. 24] will help leverage the multi-link operation of MLD capable APs and MLD clients to prevent client service disruption during client roaming [par. 25].
Regarding claim 16, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the roaming recommendation is configured to indicate one or more links to establish a network connection to.
However, Smith further discloses wherein the roaming recommendation is configured to indicate one or more links to establish a network connection to [par. 94; generates a ranked list of neighboring AP’s to be sent to client].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Homchaudhuri with the teachings of Smith since leveraging multi-link operation of MLD capable APs and MLD clients prevents client service disruption during client roaming [par. 25].
Regarding claim 18, Homchaudhuri discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above but does not particularly disclose wherein the objective function is configured to indicate if roaming recommendations should prioritize single access point connections or multi-access point connections.
However, Smith further discloses wherein the objective function is configured to indicate if roaming recommendations should prioritize single access point connections or multi-access point connections [par. 93; multi-AP MLD… ranked higher than… single AP MLDs… that do not provide transparent transition].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Homchaudhuri with the teaching of Smith since leveraging multi-link operation of MLD capable APs and MLD clients prevents client service disruption during client roaming [par. 25].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . Bahr (US 2017/0280337 A1) discloses methods for multi access point (AP) coordination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIJAH P. WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/ELIJAH PETER WILSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/CHARLES N APPIAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights