DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 29, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant summarily argues that “[n]either Sevin, nor Du, nor any combination thereof, teaches [amended claim 1 at lines 3-11]1” (Remarks, p. 11). Applicant then characterizes Du, and again, summarily states failure to teach this extensive portion of the claim (Remarks, p. 12). This argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
To the extent Applicant is arguing the prior art of record fails to teach the amended claim language, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, Sevin at least teaches the alternative feature of requisite signaling implemented during link establishment (see, e.g., [0114], [0115], [0173]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2024/0214920 A1 (hereinafter “Sevin”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sevin, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0214936 A1 (hereinafter “Du”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13: Sevin teaches a wireless communication method, performed by a station supporting multi-link, comprising:
determining a first message frame, wherein the first message frame comprises an identifier information bit, and the identifier information bit is configured to indicate that the station supporting multi-link supports a access point multi-link device function, the first message frame is a message frame that the station supporting multi-link needs to send to a first station during a process of establishing multiple communication links with the first station, or the first message frame is a message frame that the station supporting multi-link needs to send to the first station during a re-association process with the first station, and the first station is an access point or a station device that supports multi-link; and sending the first message frame to a first station (see, e.g., figure 2, [0117]-[0128], [0178]; frames are exchanged between an AP MLD and a Non-AP MLD; note, for instance, requests sent from the Non-AP MLD include fields indicated supported functions and/or capabilities; see also [0114], [0115], [0173] with respect to link establishment).
Sevin does not specify a “mobile” AP MLD and/or indicate support for a mobile AP MLD. To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Sevin, it is nevertheless taught by Du (see, e.g., [0046]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to indications and messaging [0343]-[0346]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Du, such as the MLD functionality and/or signaling, within the system of Sevin, in order to promote energy savings.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the station and medium of claims 12 and 13, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 14: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the first message frame comprises a multi-link (ML) information element, and the one or more identifier information bits are one or more bits in the ML information element (see, e.g., Sevin [0122]-[0125]; note also Du [0214]. The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 2 is applicable to the station of claim 14.
Regarding claims 3 and 15: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the one or more identifier information bits are one or more bits in a multi-link device (MLD) capability information subfield in the ML information element (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 3 is applicable to the station of claim 15.
Regarding claims 4 and 16: Sevin modified by Du further teaches in a process of establishing a communication link with the first station, determining a primary communication link in a Non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive(NSTR) link pair, wherein the primary communication link is configured to send a beacon frame or a probe response frame (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187], [0222]; and/or Du [0058], [0059], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 4 is applicable to the station of claim 16.
Regarding claims 5 and 17: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein determining the primary communication link in the NSTR link pair comprises at least one of: determining any communication link in the NSTR link pair as the primary communication link; and determining a first communication link in the NSTR link pair as the primary communication link, wherein the first communication link is a communication link through which the station supporting multi-link establishes association with the first station (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187]; and/or Du [0058], [0059], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the station of claim 17.
Regarding claims 6 and 18: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein sending indication information to the first station, wherein the indication information is configured to indicate the primary communication link in the NSTR link pair (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187]; and/or Du [0058], [0059], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 6 is applicable to the station of claim 18.
Regarding claims 7 and 19: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the first message frame further comprises a primary communication link identifier bit, and the primary communication link identifier bit is one or more bits in the ML information element, and the primary communication link identifier bit is configured to indicate the primary communication link in a Non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (NSTR) link pair (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187]; and/or Du [0058], [0059], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 7 is applicable to the station of claim 19.
Regarding claims 8 and 20: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the first message frame further comprises a link pair identifier bit, and the link pair identifier bit is one or more bits in the ML information element, and the link pair identifier bit is configured to indicate a Non-Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (NSTR) link pair (see, e.g., Sevin [0117]-[0128], [0178], [0184]-[0187]; and/or Du [0058], [0059], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 8.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 8 is applicable to the station of claim 20.
Regarding claims 9 and 21: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the first message frame is a probe request frame or an association request frame (see, e.g., Sevin figure 2, items 211 and/or 221).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 9 is applicable to the station of claim 21.
Regarding claim 10: Sevin modified by Du further teaches wherein the station supporting multi-link comprises a non-access point multi-link device Non-AP MLD (Non-AP MLD) that supports multi-link (see, e.g., Sevin figure 2, item 120).
Conclusion
8. 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 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 The Examiner respectfully notes that the cited portion of the amended claim does not include each of the changes made in the current claim submission (e.g. line 4 should read “one or more identifier information bits.” Nevertheless, the Examiner understands this to be a typographical error.
Prosecution Insights