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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an amendment filed on 06/11/2026. 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18 and 20 are amended, claims 5, 12 and 19 are cancelled, and claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, see page 6, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered. The claims have been amended to clarify the claimed subject matter; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 6-8, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered. The amended claims overcome the prior rejections; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite determining a stream “tolerant to excess latency”. The examiner is unable to find support for this limitation in the specification. The best support found for this limitation is in paragraph [0023] of the originally filed specification which discloses determining a stream “intolerant to excess latency”. Therefore, the limitation is deemed to be new matter.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20-23 are dependent from claims 1, 8 and 15, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 2021/0120552), hereinafter Fang, in view of Zhu et al. (US 2024/0267792), hereinafter Zhu, further in view of Mladin et al. (US 2021/0127343), hereinafter Mladin.
Regarding claim 1, Fang discloses a method comprising:
determining that more than one links exist between at least one Access Point (AP) and a client device (Fang, Fig. 1C, [0072], [0112]: AP MLD determines to map a service to combinations of established links. Fig. 1C shows links 188, 190 and 192 between AP MLD 172 (at least one AP) and non-AP MLD 180 (client device);
determining at least one stream that is tolerant to excess latency (Fang, [0065], [0110]: AP MLD determines whether it supports requested traffic stream (at least one stream) parameters including latency bound and traffic stream tolerance for packets that miss the deadline (i.e., tolerant to excess latency));
replicating a first packet to create a second packet (Fang, Fig. 4A, [0097], [0112], [0121]: AP MLD duplicates packets for a TSID on multiple links and replicates each frame in a compound stream into a first duplicated frame (first packet) and a second duplicated frame (second packet)), wherein the first packet and the second packet comprise a sequence number (Fang, [0203]: first 802.11 frame (first packet) and second 802.11 frame (second packet) each comprise the first sequence number);
causing transmission of the first packet over a first link and the second packet over a second link (Fang, [0203]: sending the first 802.11 frame (first packet) using a first wireless connection and the second 802.11 (second packet) frame using a second wireless connection); and
forwarding the first packet from the first link and the second packet from the second link towards the client device (Fang, [0121], [0063], [0112]: AP MLD duplicates client bound packets on multiple links and sends a first duplicated frame (first packet) over a first Wi-Fi interface (first link) and a second duplicated frame (second packet) over a second Wi-Fi interface (second link) towards the non-AP MLD (client device)).
Fang does not explicitly disclose identifying streams to the client device that are tolerant to frame reordering; from the identified streams that are tolerant to frame reordering; from the at least one stream that is tolerant to the excess latency.
However, Zhu discloses
identifying streams to the client device that are tolerant to frame reordering (Zhu, [0136], [0389]: identifying High Throughput Flow ID 3 traffic (streams) sent to client 101 and allowing its out-of-order packets to be reordered or sent to upper layers (i.e., tolerant to frame reordering));
determining at least one stream that is tolerant to excess latency from the identified streams that are tolerant to frame reordering (Zhu, [0127], [0128], [0136]: high throughput flows (streams tolerant to frame reordering) such as the identified High Throughput Flow ID 3, are given a larger 1000 packet queue and 1000 ms timeout (i.e., are determined to be tolerant to excess latency)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang and Zhu before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an AP MLD stream selection and multi-link transmission system as taught by Fang, to include flow dependent reordering and timeout criteria as taught by Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide multi-link redundancy while preserving the ordering and latency requirements of each stream.
Furthermore, the combination of Fang and Zhu does not explicitly disclose from the at least one stream that is tolerant to the excess latency.
However, Mladin discloses replicating from the at least one stream that is tolerant to the excess latency a first packet to create a second packet (Mladin, [0131], [0134]: sending delay tolerant data with the same DTDtag to multiple relays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang, Zhu and Mladin before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an AP MLD’s packet replication logic as taught by Fang and Zhu, to include utilizing a delay tolerant data redundancy technique as a replication rule as taught by Mladin. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the likelihood of successful delivery (Mladin, [0099], [0106], [0134]).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Fang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (Fang, [0134]).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Fang discloses a system comprising: a first memory storage (Fang, [0128]); and a first processing unit coupled to the first memory storage, wherein the first processing unit is operative to (Fang, [0128]).
Regarding claim 2, Fang discloses wherein creating the first packet and the second packet is performed on an Ethernet network (Fang, Figs. 2A-2C, [0077], [0079]: Ethernet based TSN network performs replication of frames for redundant transmission [thereby creating first and second packets on an Ethernet network]).
Regarding claim 3, Fang discloses wherein creating the first packet and the second packet is performed on a wireless network (Fang, Fig. 8A, [0121]; Fig. 4A, [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, Fang discloses further comprising receiving, by the client device, the first packet and the second packet (Fang, Figs. 3A-3B, [0086], [0087], [0092]: listener/receiver device (client device) receives multiple redundant frames having the same sequence number, including a first frame (first packet) and a subsequently received frame (second packet)).
Regarding claim 6, Fang discloses further comprising eliminating one of the first packet and the second packet based on the sequence number (Fang, [0092]).
Regarding claim 7, Fang discloses further comprising, within a packet stream, one of the first packet and the second packet that was not eliminated based on the sequence number (Fang, [0092]: processing or forwarding the first frame and discarding the subsequently received second frame having the same sequence number).
Fang does not explicitly disclose resequencing.
However, Zhu discloses further comprising resequencing, within a packet stream (Zhu, [0119], [0120], [0370]: multi-link reordering in which the GMA Rx reassembles and reorders (resequencing) packets of a flow (stream) delivered over multiple access networks based on sequence numbers and delivers the packets in order to higher levels), one of the first packet and the second packet that was not eliminated based on the sequence number (Zhu, [0370], [0387]: detecting and removing duplicated RAT1 and RAT2 packets based on their sequence number and delivering the remaining reassembled and reordered packet in order (i.e., resequenced)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang and Zhu before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a multi-link packet replication and duplicate elimination method as taught by Fang, to include flow sequence number based reordering of the packet within the stream as taught by Zhu. The motivation for doing so would have been to guarantee in-order delivery to higher layers when packets arrive out of order over multiple links.
Regarding claims 9-11, 13 and 14, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 2-4, 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 2-4 and 6, respectively.
Regarding claim 21, Fang discloses wherein the first processing unit is further operative to: determine whether Frame Replication and Elimination (FRER) is needed (Fang, [0029], [0112]: AP MLD decides whether a stream will use redundant paths and packet duplication (i.e., determines whether frame replication and elimination is needed)) based on a distributed Multi-Link Operation or during a Make Before Break Roaming (MBBR) process (Fang, [0115]: pre-admitting a stream at neighboring APs and preserving the service during handoff (i.e., make before break roaming)).
Regarding claim 22, Fang discloses wherein the first processing unit being operative to determine that more than one links exist between at least one Access Point (AP) and a client device comprises the first processing unit being operative to determine existence of concurrent AP-client device pairs (Fang, [0033]; Fig. 1C, [0072]; [0112]: AP MLD uses the link identifiers or all established links when mapping a service, while APs 174, 176 and 178 concurrently communicate with corresponding non-AP client STAs 182, 184 and 186 over links 188, 190 and 192 [This implies determining that more than one link exist through the existence of concurrent AP and client device pairs]).
Regarding claim 23, Fang and Zhu do not explicitly disclose wherein the first processing unit is operative to determine the at least one stream that is tolerant to excess latency from Electronic Digital Data Sheets.
However, Mladin discloses wherein the first processing unit is operative to determine the at least one stream that is tolerant to excess latency from Electronic Digital Data Sheets (Mladin, Table 1, [0139]; Table 4, [0150]; [0133]: using configuration tables and a mapping table (Electronic Digital Data Sheets) containing DTDtags, service or flow identifiers, and maximum delivery delay or buffering information to determine a delay tolerant stream (stream that is tolerant to excess latency)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fang, Zhu and Mladin before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify an AP MLD stream selection and multi-link transmission system that utilizes a flow dependent reordering criteria as taught by Fang and Zhu, to include utilizing configuration and mapping tables (Electronic Digital Data Sheets) for determining the delay tolerance characteristics associated with an identified stream as taught by Mladin. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the AP MLD with an association between flow identifiers and delay parameters, thereby enabling consistent and efficient selection of the appropriate multi-link treatment for each stream.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights