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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites "include an MLD MAC address of the AP MLD in the reconfiguration ML, element" containing an extraneous comma between "ML" and "element" (should read "reconfiguration ML element"). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation "the setup links" lacks proper antecedent basis because each claim previously recites "a link" set up with a corresponding STA/AP in the singular, leaving unclear whether "the setup links" refers to the antecedent singular "link" or to a separately introduced plurality of links across the affiliated APs/STAs. Accordingly, their dependent claims are also rejected because the indefiniteness of the base claim flows down to and renders the dependent claims indefinite. For examination purposes, the Office is interpreting "the setup links" as the one or more links established between the affiliated APs of the AP MLD and the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD during multi-link setup.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the scope of the step of "update the reconfiguration ML element to indicate the remaining affiliated APs that are to be removed" is rendered indefinite by its relationship to the immediately preceding step of "determine whether any of the affiliated APs that are to be removed remain affiliated," because it is unclear whether the updating is conditioned on the determination (i.e., performed only when APs remain affiliated) or is performed unconditionally, leaving the metes and bounds of the claimed method ambiguous. For examination purposes, the Office is interpreting the recited updating as being performed in response to the immediately preceding determination, i.e., only when one or more of the affiliated APs that are to be removed are determined to remain affiliated, consistent with the determine-then-update sequence disclosed in the specification.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the limitation "based on a determination that one AP that is to be removed remains affiliated" is indefinite because it is unclear whether "one AP" requires exactly one AP to remain affiliated or at least one AP, such that the condition triggering setting the MAC address present subfield to 1 is insolubly ambiguous in scope. For examination purposes, the Office is interpreting "one AP that is to be removed remains affiliated" as at least one AP that is to be removed remaining affiliated.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation "based on one AP that is to be removed remaining affiliated" is indefinite because it is unclear whether "one AP" requires exactly one or at least one affiliated AP to remain, rendering the condition for the MAC address present subfield being set to 1 ambiguous in scope. For examination purposes, the Office is interpreting "one AP that is to be removed remaining affiliated" as at least one AP that is to be removed remaining affiliated.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0008118 A1) in view of Lu (US 2025/0119965 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses: APs each comprising a transceiver configured to transmit on a link setup with a corresponding station (STA) of a non-AP MLD, wherein the APs are affiliated with the AP MLD for multi-link (ML) operation on the setup links, at least because Kim teaches one AP supporting two links is expressed as one AP MLD including a first AP and a second AP, each operating on a respective setup link with a corresponding STA of a non-AP MLD (Kim, para [0150] "one AP supporting two links may be expressed as one AP MLD including a first AP for a first link and a second AP for a second link").
Moreover, Kim discloses: a processor operably coupled to the APs, the processor configured to generate a reconfiguration ML element that indicates one or more of the affiliated APs that are to be removed from affiliation with the AP MLD for the ML operation, at least because Kim teaches a processor generates an ML Reconfiguration variant Multi-Link element used to delete some links among the links set up (Kim, para [0211] "an ML Reconfiguration variant Multi-Link element (or the Reconfiguration Multi-Link element), which is a new ML IE Type for ML Reconfiguration, is newly defined" … para [0190] "the STA of the MLD can remove and delete some of the links among the links set up without disassociation process").
Furthermore, Kim discloses: wherein the transceivers are further configured to transmit the reconfiguration ML element to the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD, at least because Kim teaches a control signal generated in the processor is transmitted through the transceivers to the receiving STA (Kim, para [0061] "a control signal generated in the processors 111 and 121 illustrated in the sub-figure (a)/(b) of FIG. 1 is transmitted through the transceivers 113 and 123 illustrated in the sub-figure (a)/(b) of FIG. 1").
Further, Kim teaches ML reconfiguration that deletes some links and delivers updated information after the reconfiguration operation between transmitting and receiving MLDs (Kim, para [0009] "configuring a separate frame to deliver updated information after a Multi-Link (ML) reconfiguration operation between a transmitting and receiving MLD") however, Kim does not explicitly disclose that after transmitting the reconfiguration ML element, determining whether any of the affiliated APs that are to be removed remain affiliated: after transmitting the reconfiguration ML element, determine whether any of the affiliated APs that are to be removed remain affiliated.
Nevertheless, Kim in view of Lu teaches that the AP MLD announces deletion of an affiliated AP by transmitting the reconfiguration multi-link element in the beacon frames of all affiliated APs until that affiliated AP has been deleted, such that after transmitting the reconfiguration ML element the AP MLD continues to identify which of the affiliated APs that are to be removed have not yet been deleted and thus remain affiliated (Lu, para [0066] “The AP MLD announces deletion of any affiliated AP by a reconfiguration multi-link element transmitted in all beacon frames and/or probe response frames of all affiliated APs, until the affiliated AP has been deleted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Lu in order to confirm, after transmitting the reconfiguration ML element, which of the affiliated APs that are to be removed remain affiliated before their removal is completed.
Further, Kim teaches a separate frame delivers updated information after an ML reconfiguration operation, where key information of the MLD is updated through link changes (Kim, para [0219] "key information of the non-AP MLD may be updated through these link changes") however, Kim does not explicitly disclose that updating the reconfiguration ML element to indicate the remaining affiliated APs still to be removed: update the reconfiguration ML element to indicate the remaining affiliated APs that are to be removed.
Even so, Kim in view of Lu teaches that, for each affiliated AP attempted to be deleted, the reconfiguration multi-link element includes a per-STA profile and is re-transmitted in successive beacon frames until the AP has been deleted, and upon a link being deleted the element conveys the common information of the remaining links, so that the re-transmitted element indicates the remaining affiliated APs that are still to be removed (Lu, para [0066] “For each affiliated AP attempted to be deleted by the AP MLD, the reconfiguration multi-link element includes a per-STA profile subelement”; para [0081] “in a case that the first part of links is the link requested to be deleted by the first MLD, the link common information is common information of remaining links in the second part of links after the first part of links is deleted from the second part of links”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Lu in order to keep the reconfiguration ML element current by re-transmitting it to indicate the affiliated APs that remain to be removed.
Further, Kim teaches the transmitting MLD delivers updated information after reconfiguration to the receiving MLD over the links that remain established (Kim, para [0250] "the first transmitting and receiving STAs are connected to the first link, and the second transmitting and receiving STAs are connected to the second link") however, Kim does not explicitly disclose that transmitting, by transceivers of remaining affiliated APs, the updated reconfiguration ML element to the STAs: wherein the transceivers of remaining affiliated APs are further configured to transmit the updated reconfiguration ML element to the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD.
Yet, Kim in view of Lu teaches that the reconfiguration multi-link element is transmitted in the beacon frames of all affiliated APs until the affiliated AP has been deleted, that is, transmitted by the transceivers of the affiliated APs that remain (Lu, para [0066] “The AP MLD announces deletion of any affiliated AP by a reconfiguration multi-link element transmitted in all beacon frames and/or probe response frames of all affiliated APs, until the affiliated AP has been deleted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Lu in order to deliver the updated reconfiguration ML element over the affiliated APs that remain.
Doing so would predictably avoid full disassociation overhead when removing only some links.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses: the reconfiguration ML element includes a per-STA profile sub-element corresponding to each of the affiliated APs that are to be removed, at least because Kim teaches the Link Info field of the Multi-Link element includes a Per-STA Profile subfield for other STAs within the same MLD (Kim, para [0210] "The Link Info field includes a Per-STA Profile subfield for other STAs (STAs operating on a non-association link) within the same MLD").
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses: transmit the updated reconfiguration ML element based on at least one per-STA profile sub-element remaining in the updated reconfiguration ML element, at least because Kim teaches the Link Info field carries Per-STA Profile subfields for the STAs within the MLD, which remain present when links continue to be set up (Kim, para [0210] "The Link Info field includes a Per-STA Profile subfield for other STAs (STAs operating on a non-association link) within the same MLD").
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses: set a medium access control (MAC) address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element to 0, and the AP MLD is identified by an MLD MAC Address subfield of a basic ML element, at least because Kim teaches the Multi-Link Control field includes an MLD MAC Address Present subfield, and the Common Info field includes the MLD MAC Address subfield of the basic variant element identifying the MLD (Kim, para [0205] "The Multi-Link Control field includes a Type subfield and an MLD MAC Address Present subfield" … para [0208] "The Common Info field includes the MLD MAC Address subfield. When the MLD MAC Address Present subfield is set to 1 (or 0), MAC addresses of STAs in the MLD may be included in the MLD MAC Address subfield").
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses: set a MAC address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element to 1, and include an MLD MAC address of the AP MLD in the reconfiguration ML element, at least because Kim teaches when the MLD MAC Address Present subfield is set to 1, MAC addresses of STAs in the MLD are included in the MLD MAC Address subfield (Kim, para [0208] "When the MLD MAC Address Present subfield is set to 1 (or 0), MAC addresses of STAs in the MLD may be included in the MLD MAC Address subfield").
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses: based on no setup links remaining after the APs being removed from affiliation, the non-AP MLD is considered disassociated from the AP MLD, at least because Kim teaches if even one link is disconnected the disassociation process for all links must be performed, so when no links remain the MLD is disassociated (Kim, para [0175] "if even one link is disconnected, the disassociation process for all links must be performed").
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites: A method of wireless communication performed by an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) that comprises APs each comprising a transceiver configured to transmit on a link setup with a corresponding station (STA) of a non-AP MLD, wherein the APs are affiliated with the AP MLD for multi-link (ML) operation on the setup links, the method comprising: generating, by a processor of the AP MLD, a reconfiguration ML element that indicates one or more of the affiliated APs that are to be removed from affiliation with the AP MLD for the ML operation; transmitting, by the transceivers, the reconfiguration ML element to the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD; after transmitting the reconfiguration ML element, determining, by the processor, whether any of the affiliated APs that are to be removed remain affiliated; updating, by the processor, the reconfiguration ML element to indicate the remaining affiliated APs that are to be removed; and transmitting, by the transceivers of remaining affiliated APs, the updated reconfiguration ML element to the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD. Claim 8 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites: The method of claim 8, wherein: the reconfiguration ML element includes a per-STA profile sub-element corresponding to each of the affiliated APs that are to be removed, and the method further comprises updating, by the processor, the reconfiguration ML element by removing the per-STA profile sub-element corresponding to each AP removed from affiliation. Claim 9 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites: The method of claim 9, further comprising transmitting, by the transceivers of the remaining affiliated APs, the updated reconfiguration ML element based on at least one per-STA profile sub-element remaining in the updated reconfiguration ML element. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites: The method of claim 8, further comprising: setting, by the processor, a medium access control (MAC) address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element to 0, wherein the AP MLD is identified by an MLD MAC Address subfield of a basic ML element corresponding to the AP MLD. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites: The method of claim 8, further comprising: setting, by the processor, a MAC address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element to 1, based on a determination that one AP that is to be removed remains affiliated, and including, by the processor, an MLD MAC address of the AP MLD in the reconfiguration ML element. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites: The method of claim 8, wherein, based on no setup links remaining after the APs being removed from affiliation, the non-AP MLD is considered disassociated from the AP MLD. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites: A non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) comprising: stations (STAs) each comprising a transceiver configured to: transmit on a link setup with a corresponding AP of an AP MLD, wherein the APs are affiliated with the AP MLD for multi-link (ML) operation on the setup links, and receive a reconfiguration ML element from the corresponding AP of the AP MLD; and a processor operably coupled to the STAs, the processor configured to determine that the reconfiguration ML element indicates one or more of the affiliated APs that are to be removed from affiliation with the AP MLD for the ML operation, wherein, the transceivers are further configured to, after receiving the reconfiguration ML element, receive an updated reconfiguration ML element from corresponding remaining affiliated APs of the AP MLD, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the updated reconfiguration ML element indicates remaining affiliated APs that are to be removed. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites: The non-AP MLD of claim 15, wherein: the reconfiguration ML element includes a per-STA profile sub-element corresponding to each of the affiliated APs that are to be removed, and the per-STA profile sub-element corresponding to each AP removed from affiliation is removed from the updated reconfiguration ML element. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites: The non-AP MLD of claim 16, wherein at least one per-STA profile sub-element remains in the updated reconfiguration ML element. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites: The non-AP MLD of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, based on a medium access control (MAC) address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element being set to 0, that the AP MLD is identified by an MLD MAC Address subfield of a basic ML element corresponding to the AP MLD. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites: The non-AP MLD of claim 15, wherein: the processor is further configured to determine, based on a MAC address present subfield in the reconfiguration ML element being set to 1, that an MLD MAC Address of the AP MLD is included in the reconfiguration ML element, and the MAC address present subfield is set to 1 based on one AP that is to be removed remaining affiliated. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites: The non-AP MLD of claim 15, wherein, based on no setup links remaining after the APs being removed from affiliation, the non-AP MLD is considered disassociated from the AP MLD. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2024/0008118 A1) in view of Lu (US 2025/0119965 A1) and further in view of Chu (US 2022/0029736 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses: operate in an enhanced ML single-radio (EMLSR) or enhanced ML multi-radio (EMLMR) mode on at least one of the setup links corresponding to an affiliated AP that is to be removed, at least because Kim teaches a deleted link that supports the EML SR mode causes the MLD capability to change, tying EMLSR operation to a link of an AP being removed (Kim, para [0252] "When the second link is deleted based on the ML reconfiguration and only the second link supports an enhanced multi-link single radio operation (EML SR) mode").
Further, Kim teaches a Mode Switch Request action frame used to negotiate a switch out of eMLSR/eMLMR mode initiated by the non-AP MLD (Kim, para [0252] "the MLD capability information may further include information that the receiving MLD does not support the EML SR mode due to deletion of the second link") however, Kim in view of Lu does not explicitly disclose that receiving a request from the non-AP STAs to remove a link from EMLSR/EMLMR operation before the AP is removed: receive, from the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD, a request to remove the at least one setup link from the EMLSR or EMLMR operation before the corresponding affiliated AP is removed.
Nonetheless, Kim in view of Lu and further in view of Chu teaches a Mode Switch Request frame initiated by the non-AP MLD removes a link from enhanced multi-link operation before further changes (Chu, para [0056] "The exchange of Mode Switch Request action frame and Mode Switch Response action frame is used for the switch between eMLSR mode and MLSR mode for an eMLSR capable MLD … the mode switch is initiated by non-AP MLD").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kim in view of Lu and further in view of Chu in order to letting the non-AP MLD cleanly exit enhanced operation on a link prior to its AP being removed.
Doing so would predictably avoid invalid enhanced-mode configuration on a link being removed.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites: The method of claim 8, wherein: the transceivers operate in an enhanced ML single-radio (EMLSR) or enhanced ML multi-radio (EMLMR) mode on at least one of the setup links corresponding to an affiliated AP that is to be removed, and the method further comprises receiving, by the transceivers from the corresponding STAs of the non-AP MLD, a request to remove the at least one setup link from the EMLSR or EMLMR operation before the corresponding affiliated AP is removed. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights