Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 5, 2024, and May 1, 2025, were filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
3. 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.
4. Claims 16-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is directed to a product (apparatus) since “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” is claimed in the preamble and is a product (apparatus) claim, but the body of the claim is directed to process steps or method steps, and the corresponding structural elements for these steps are not claimed. Thus, the claim is vague because it is a system that does not comprise of any structural elements that accomplish the method. The claimed method steps can be achieved by all structural elements. When the boundaries of the subject matter are not clearly delineated, the scope is unclear.
Claims 17-20 depend on rejected claim 16. Thus, claims 17-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘799 (US 2025/0365799, “Han ‘799”), in view of Gruber ‘756 (US 2023/0319756, “Gruber ‘756”), and further in view of Pan ‘467 (US 2020/0413467, “Pan ‘467”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Han ‘799 discloses a system (FIG. 11, para 136-137; communication apparatus 1100) comprising:
a memory storage; and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit (FIG. 11, para 136-137; a memory 1130 stores instructions that are executed by a processor 1110) is operative to:
provision a set of co-channel Multi-Link Device (MLD) Access Points (APs), comprising adding a plurality of links on a same channel of the set of co-channel MLD APs to an Enhanced Multi-Link Same-Channel (eMLSC) domain (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; multiple access point multi-link (MLD AP) devices operate in a multi-link network; the multiple MLD AP devices use multiple links, where some of the links used by different MLD AP devices operate on the same channel; multiple links operating on the same channel are deployed on the multiple MLD AP devices; thus, multiple links are provisioned for the MLD AP devices by adding them to a group of devices operating in a multi-link same-channel scheme; the multi-link same-channel scheme is an multi-link scheme enhanced by the use of links operating on the same channel rather than different channels);
an eMLSC seamless roaming (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; a terminal device performs seamless roaming on links operating on the same channel resulting in high-quality service);
perform an association process with a Station (STA) requesting (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; a terminal device is associated with multiple links of multiple MLD AP devices, at the terminal device’s request).
However, Han ‘799 does not specifically disclose advertise an eMLSC seamless roaming capability; a Station (STA) requesting to use the eMLSC seamless roaming capability.
Gruber ‘756 teaches advertise an eMLSC seamless roaming capability (para 3-4; a cell sends to a UE a parameter indicating support for disaster roaming between PLMNs);
a Station (STA) requesting to use the eMLSC seamless roaming capability (para 38; UE requests disaster roaming).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Han ‘799’s system that provisions a set of co-channel MLD APs, to include Gruber ‘756’s indication of support for disaster roaming between PLMNs. The motivation for doing so would have been to save bandwidth on a system information broadcast (Gruber ‘756, para 36 and 84).
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 does not specifically disclose send an eMLSC ID to the STA, wherein the eMLSC ID identifies the plurality of links.
Pan ‘467 teaches send an eMLSC ID to the STA, wherein the eMLSC ID identifies the plurality of links (para 187; a change of a same Layer-2 ID for multiple unicast links is performed with a peer UE, where a UE receives the ID information; thus, multi-link ID identifying multiple links is sent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Pan ‘467’s change of a same Layer-2 ID for multiple unicast links that is performed with a peer UE. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a timer-based solution in addition to an explicit failure message (Pan ‘467, page 8, agreement on PC5-RRC, agreement 5).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Han ‘799 teaches wherein the STA is operable to perform seamless roaming between the plurality of links using the eMLSC ID (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; a terminal device performs seamless roaming on links operating on the same channel resulting in high-quality service, where the links are identified with an ID).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Han ‘799 teaches wherein provisioning the set of co-channel MLD APs further comprises to: provision link IDs to Basic Service Set Identifiers (BSSIDs) associated with each link of the plurality of links (FIG. 4, para 68-71; the links correspond to the same BSSID);
identify the plurality of links are eMLSC capable (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; some of the links used by different MLD AP devices operate on the same channel, used in seamless roaming that results in high-quality service; thus, the links are capable to operate on the same channel, in seamless roaming).
7. Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘799, in view of Gruber ‘756, further in view of Pan ‘467, and further in view of Klatt ‘863 (US 2012/0100863, “Klatt ‘863”).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Han ‘799 teaches wherein the set of co-channel MLD APs have compatible configurations on the same channel (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; multiple access point multi-link (MLD AP) devices operate in a multi-link network; the multiple MLD AP devices use multiple links, where some of the links used by different MLD AP devices operate on the same channel; multiple links operating on the same channel are deployed on the multiple MLD AP devices; thus, the MLD APs have compatible configurations with links that operate on the same channel).
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 does not specifically disclose compatible Physical (PHY) configurations.
Klatt ‘863 teaches compatible Physical (PHY) configurations (para 6; signals have the same physical layer configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Klatt ‘863’s signals that have the same physical layer configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of finding a UMTS femto cell with a mobile UE that does not support the CSG functionality of 3GPP Rel-8 (Klatt ‘863, para 32).
8. Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘799, in view of Gruber ‘756, further in view of Pan ‘467, and further in view of Park ‘549 (US 11,258,549, “Park ‘549”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 9, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 does not specifically disclose wherein the processing unit is further operative to: receive one or more duplicate transmissions from the STA on one or more links of the plurality of links; and eliminate the one or more duplicate transmissions.
Park ‘549 teaches wherein the processing unit is further operative to:
receive one or more duplicate transmissions from the STA on one or more links of the plurality of links; and eliminate the one or more duplicate transmissions (FIG. 17, col. 52:48-54; duplicated uplink packets are received from the wireless device and discarded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Park ‘549’s duplicated uplink packets that are received from the wireless device and discarded. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of inefficient resource allocation and decreased communication reliability (Park ‘549, col. 1:14-20).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 9, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Han ‘799 teaches wherein the processing unit is further operative to: send, to the STA, a plurality of transmissions on two or more links of the plurality of links (para 108; transmission to the terminal device through two links).
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 does not specifically disclose receive an Acknowledge (ACK) response from the STA.
Park ‘549 teaches receive an Acknowledge (ACK) response from the STA (col. 17:6-24; uplink control information (UCI) carries an ACK).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Park ‘549’s UCI that carries an ACK. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of inefficient resource allocation and decreased communication reliability (Park ‘549, col. 1:14-20).
9. Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘799, in view of Gruber ‘756, further in view of Pan ‘467, and further in view of Guignard ‘962 (US 2026/0046962, “Guignard ‘962”).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 does not specifically disclose wherein the processing unit is further operative to: create a new eMLSC ID for a new channel; and add one or more new links to the new eMLSC ID.
Guignard ‘962 teaches wherein the processing unit is further operative to: create a new eMLSC ID for a new channel; and add one or more new links to the new eMLSC ID (para 18-25; a new link ID defines a new link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Guignard ‘962’s new link ID that defines a new link. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve off-channel usage mechanism in the context of multi-link (Guignard ‘962, para 15).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘799, in view of Gruber ‘756, further in view of Pan ‘467, and further in view of Löhr ‘202 (US 2018/0310202, “Löhr ‘202”).
Regarding claim 8, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Han ‘799 teaches further comprising: adding the new link to the eMLSC domain (FIGS. 4 and 6; para 7-11, 25-26, 68-71, and 111; multiple access point multi-link (MLD AP) devices operate in a multi-link network; the multiple MLD AP devices use multiple links, where some of the links used by different MLD AP devices operate on the same channel; multiple links operating on the same channel are deployed on the multiple MLD AP devices; thus, multiple links are provisioned for the MLD AP devices by adding them to a group of devices operating in a multi-link same-channel scheme).
However, Han ‘799 in combination with Gruber ‘756 and Pan ‘467 does not specifically disclose receiving a transmission from the STA on a new link.
Löhr ‘202 teaches receiving a transmission from the STA on a new link (Table 1, para 88; UE transmits on the UL via a new link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined system of Han ‘799 and Gruber ‘756, to include Löhr ‘202’s UE that transmits on the UL via a new link. The motivation for doing so would have been to recover from temporary failures or unanticipated changes (Löhr ‘202, para 2).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights