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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 9 July 2026, claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 19 have been amended; claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 17, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 19-20 are now pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant argues that Cordeiro fails to disclose first and second support capability information indicating that the AP MLD or the non-AP STA MLD supports basic service set handover within the AP MLD or within an extended basic service set.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. As explained in the Office Action with respect to original dependent claim 2, Cordeiro discloses that multi-connectivity capability information may be decoded from an information element included in a management frame and indicates whether the access point supports the disclosed transition functionality (¶140). The Examiner finds that Cordeiro's disclosed multi-connectivity capability information constitutes support capability information identifying whether the device supports the disclosed transition operation. The claim does not require any particular encoding or format of the support capability information. Accordingly, Cordeiro teaches or at least suggests the claimed support capability information.
Argument 2: Applicant argues that Cordeiro merely discloses transitioning a stream between two distinct access points rather than handover within the AP MLD or within an extended basic service set.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Applicant does not identify any patentable structural or functional distinction between the claimed handover operation and Cordeiro's disclosed coordinated transition operation beyond the terminology employed. Cordeiro discloses coordinated transition between access points using exchanged capability information and management signaling. The Examiner finds that such coordinated transition operations would have suggested the claimed handover procedure to one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection is based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, not anticipation.
Argument 3: Applicant argues that Cordeiro fails to disclose the complete signaling flow recited in amended claim 1.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Cordeiro discloses a sequence of management frame exchanges including association request and response messages, multi-connectivity setup request and response messages, and per-stream BSS transition request and response messages (Fig. 8B; ¶¶133-145). The incorporation of limitations from original claims 2 and 5 into amended claim 1 does not introduce subject matter that was not previously addressed by the Office Action.
Argument 4: Applicant argues that Cordeiro discloses a transition request transmitted from the AP to the STA, whereas amended claim 1 requires the AP to receive a third message frame from an affiliated station of the non-AP STA MLD.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Applicant focuses only on the per-stream transition request while overlooking the remaining management frame exchanges disclosed in Figure 8B. Cordeiro teaches bidirectional signaling between the AP and the STA, including messages transmitted from the STA to the AP, such as the association request, the multi-connectivity setup request, and the per-stream BSS transition response. Accordingly, Cordeiro does not limit the disclosed signaling to AP-to-STA communication, and the Examiner maintains that the disclosed management frame exchanges teach or at least suggest the claimed signaling.
Argument 5: Applicant argues that Cordeiro fails to disclose a third message frame comprising identification information indicating that basic service set handover within the AP MLD is to be performed.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. As explained in the Office Action with respect to original dependent claim 5, Cordeiro's management frames include information identifying the communication subject to transition together with information identifying the requested transition operation (see, e.g., ¶¶142-143 and Fig. 14). The Examiner finds such information constitutes the claimed identification information for indicating that the transition operation is to be performed.
Argument 6: Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to provide an adequate rationale supporting obviousness.
Response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive. The Office Action identified the teachings of Cordeiro corresponding to the limitations of original claims 1, 2, and 5 and explained why the claimed capability information and management frame signaling would have been obvious in view of those teachings. The present amendment merely incorporates the limitations of previously rejected dependent claims into independent claim 1 and does not present newly claimed subject matter that was not previously considered. Accordingly, the rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and MPEP §§2141 and 2143.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro et al. (WO 2018/217901, as recited in the IDS).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro.
"1. A communication method for basic service set (BSS) handover performed by an access point multi-link device (AP MLD), the communication method comprising: determining, by the AP MLD, a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises first support capability information indicating at least one of: the AP MLD supports BSS handover within the AP MLD; or the AP MLD supports BSS handover within an extended BSS;"
Cordeiro discloses a communication method performed by an access point for coordinated transition in a multi-connectivity wireless network. Specifically, Cordeiro discloses determining an association response frame or a multi-connectivity setup response frame including a multi-connectivity capability information element indicating whether the access point supports the disclosed transition functionality (Fig. 8B; ¶ 140). The disclosed multi-connectivity capability information teaches or at least suggests the claimed first support capability information because it identifies whether the access point supports the disclosed transition operation.
"sending, by the AP MLD, the first message frame to a non-AP station multi-link device (STA MLD);"
Cordeiro discloses transmitting the association response message (804) and the multi-connectivity setup response message (808) from the access point to the station (Fig. 8B; ¶¶ 133-140).
"receiving, by the AP MLD from the non-AP STA MLD, a second message frame, wherein the second message frame comprises second support capability information indicating at least one of: the non-AP STA MLD supports BSS handover within the AP MLD; or the non-AP STA MLD supports BSS handover within an extended BSS;"
Cordeiro discloses receiving the association request message (802) and the multi-connectivity setup request message (806) from the station, wherein the request messages communicate the station's multi-connectivity capability information to the access point (Fig. 8B; ¶¶ 133-140, 147). The disclosed capability information teaches or at least suggests the claimed second support capability information because it identifies whether the station supports the disclosed transition functionality.
"receiving, by the AP MLD from an affiliated station of the non-AP STA MLD, a third message frame, wherein the third message frame comprises identification information for indicating to perform BSS handover within the AP MLD."
Cordeiro discloses bidirectional management frame exchanges between the station and the access point, including per-stream BSS transition signaling (Fig. 8B). Cordeiro further discloses that the transition signaling includes information identifying the communication subject to transition and the requested transition operation, including a traffic identifier, AP list, required indication, access category, and reason code (¶¶ 142-145; Fig. 14). Such identifying information teaches or at least suggests the claimed identification information for indicating that the handover operation is to be performed.
To the extent Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose that the handover occurs within the AP MLD or within an extended BSS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Cordeiro's disclosed multi-connectivity capability signaling and coordinated transition procedures in an AP MLD environment because both systems utilize capability advertisement and management frame signaling to coordinate transition operations among affiliated communication links while maintaining connectivity, thereby achieving the predictable result of coordinated BSS handover using known signaling techniques.
Regarding claim 3, Cordeiro further discloses , wherein the first support capability information is identified by one or more first bits in an extended capabilities element of the first message frame,wherein the second support capability information is identified by one or more second bits in an extended capabilities element of the second message frame, as evidenced by structured encoding of capability information within information elements (¶[0140]). Thus, representing capability information using bits would have been an obvious implementation choice.
Regarding claim 6, Cordeiro further discloses sending a fourth message frame to the affiliated station to indicate to release an associated connection between the affiliated station and an affiliated access point of the AP MLD corresponding to the affiliated station, as evidenced by: “such as a (re)association request or response frame” (¶[0140]). Thus, selecting such management frame types would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Cordeiro further discloses receiving a fifth message frame from an affiliated station of the non-AP STA MLD, wherein the fifth message frame comprises identification information for indicating to perform basic service set handover within the extended basic service set, as evidenced by: “operation 1710 may include encoding a multi-connectivity setup request message…” (¶[0141]). Thus, additional signaling related to multi-connectivity and transition would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Cordeiro further discloses sending a sixth message frame to the affiliated station to indicate to release all associated connections between the non-AP STA MLD and the AP MLD, as evidenced by: “a station may associate with two or more access points simultaneously… and transition a portion of its active streams from one of the access points to another” (¶[0114]). Thus, coordinating communication across multiple access points based on capability information would have been obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Cordeiro teaches or at least suggests a system comprising one or more processors and memory configured to perform the communication method recited in claim 1, including determining and transmitting a first message frame comprising support capability information, receiving a second message frame comprising support capability information, and receiving a third message frame comprising identification information for indicating the requested transition operation, as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Cordeiro for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Cordeiro further discloses wherein the first support capability information is identified by one or more first bits in an extended capability element of the first message frame, wherein the second support capability information is identified by one or more second bits in an extended capability element of the second message frame, as evidenced by structured encoding of capability information within information elements (¶[0140]).
Regarding claim 14, Cordeiro further discloses receiving, by the affiliated station, a fourth message frame, wherein the fourth message frame is used to indicate to release an associated connection between the affiliated station and an affiliated access point of the AP MLD corresponding to the affiliated station, as evidenced by: “such as a (re)association request or response frame” (¶[0140]).
Regarding claim 15, Cordeiro further discloses sending, by an affiliated station of the non-AP STA MLD a fifth message frame, wherein the fifth message frame comprises identification information for indicating to perform basic service set handover within the extended basic service set, as evidenced by signaling exchanges between stations and access points and capability information indicating BSS transition between access points (¶[0132]–[0153], ¶[0141]). To the extent Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose a “fifth message frame” including such identification information, it would have been obvious to structure signaling into sequential message frames and include identification information indicating extended BSS handover, since such message structuring is a routine protocol design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Cordeiro further discloses receiving, by the affiliated station, a sixth message frame, wherein the sixth message frame is used to indicate to release all associated connections between the non-AP STA MLD and the AP MLD, as evidenced by disclosure of transitioning communication streams and reconfiguring associations across access points (¶[0114], ¶[0132]–[0153]). To the extent Cordeiro does not explicitly disclose a message indicating release of all associated connections, it would have been obvious to include such signaling following handover, since releasing prior connections is a well-known step in WLAN mobility procedures.
Claim 19 recites an electronic apparatus corresponding to the communication method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, Cordeiro discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the communication method according to claim 1, as evidenced by processor-based implementations of multi-connectivity coordination and message processing in access points (¶[0031]–[0036]).
Cordeiro discloses the underlying method steps corresponding to claim 1 as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to implement such methods using software stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as this is a well-known and routine implementation of communication protocols in wireless systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights