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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0305409; note also provisional 63/489,733 [“733”] and , 63/451,455 [”455”] – noting that in the case of 733, which includes the elements of 2024/0305409 up until the end of the discussion of fig. 22, parallel citations have not been provided as the disclosure follows the same paragraph and structure format with a difference largely in numbering; for citations to elements after fig. 22, parallel citations are provided to 455) in view of Chitrakar, et al. (WPO Publication No. WO/2021/126075).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Kneckt discloses a method comprising and an access point comprising one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-readable instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an access point (paragraph 0074), cause the access point to:
detecting/detect a roaming point, wherein, the roaming point is an event that triggers a user equipment to switch connectivity from a first access point to a second access point, and the user equipment, the first access point, and the second access point operate as multi-link devices; (Kneckt discloses a station/non-AP multi-link device [“MLD”] device [fig. 22, element 2210] attached to a current serving first AP/MLD device [fig. 22, element 2220] determines to trigger a handover and sends a handover perpetration to the first access point to trigger a connectivity switch [fig. 22, element 2256 paragraphs 0152-0157; see also 733, paragraphs 0139-0144] the roaming point is defined as a point during the preperation, which triggers the UE to complete the handover when ready by sending the change routing command [i.e. after 2256 and associated steps at the first access point are complete] [paragraphs 0157-0163].)
maintaining/maintain, by the first access point, transmission of downlink data to the user equipment after the roaming point until one of a plurality of conditions occurs; and (The first AP/MLD device continues to transmit DL frames initially buffered at the first AP [“DFIB”] after the handover is initiated/roaming point occurs [fig. 22, element 2256 – handover/roaming initiated; 2258 – continued transmission of DFIB to UE; paragraphs 0157-0162 – first AP transmits the DFIB to the UE in accordance with the “forwarding rule”; paragraphs 0088-0091 – forwarding rule includes the first AP continuing to transmit DFIB until the STA indicates to stop [0088] or both the first and second base station send the DFIB to the UE at the same time [0089] or only the first base station transmits all the DFIB to the UE [0090].)
flushing/flush uplink traffic from the user equipment. (Kneckt further discloses that the link switch signaling may cause the first APs reorder buffer to be flushed/discarded [paragraph 0162]. This the reorder buffer of the AP referred to is the UL reorder buffer which may be flushed by setting the SN far outside the current reception window base on a BAR [paragraph 0062, 0149].)
Kneckt fails to explicitly disclose dropping uplink traffic. (i.e. Kneckt discloses flushing based on advancement of the SN of the buffer window outside the current window, but is very ambiguous as to if this would result in packet dropping or not). In the same field of endeavor, Chitrakar discloses dropping uplink traffic. (Chitrakar discloses that traffic that is beyond the window start/WinstartR (for example because of advancement with the BAR of Kneckt) is dropped in traditional systems [paragraph 0098]. Furthermore, the link state/scoreboard of a link is only stored up to the start of WinStartR, so the advancement of the WinStartR based on the BAR will result in the discarding of the uplink state information for all of the dropped packets as wall [paragraph 0086].)
Therefore, since Chitrakar discloses frame dropping, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dropping of Chitrakar with the system of Kneckt by flushing the uplink traffic by dropping the frames and associated link state in the scoreboard as it falls outside the start of the buffer window because of the advancement of the window by the BAR in the system of Kneckt. The motive to combine is to drop packets that can no longer by successfully transmitted because of the in-process handover to conserve resources.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar discloses discarding uplink state information for the user equipment (see independent claim, supra, the scoreboard uplink state associated with the dropped frames is also discarded).
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17, the prior embodiment of Kneckt fails to disclose transferring network control information from the first access point to the second access point at the roaming point. (i.e. the embodiment of fig. 22 of Kneckt discloses the flush and DFIB transfer occurs at link switch, after the roaming point, as it is directed to a scenario where the first AP exclusively provides handover access in the switching period, and, while other options are discussed, it is not clear the state of flushing the link) In the same field of endeavor, another embodiment of Kneckt discloses transferring network control information from the first access point to the second access point at the roaming point. (Kneckt discloses that during the preparation phase may first flush buffers [paragraph 0094, fig. 6, element 648 – command to flush buffers occurs before sending DFIB] and then may transmit a transmission success with DFIB to the second AP [fig. 6, element 650] , which herein defined as the roaming point as it marks the end of preparing to handover, after which DFIB transmission of data to the first UE may continue to the station from the first AP [fig. 6, element 654, paragraph 0096] until the handover is complete [fig. 6, element 664] [paragraph 0099]. The DFIB includes SNs of the old packets/network control information for controlling the transmission window [paragraph 0100-0101, 0084]. This is to allow for the application of forwarding type 1, in which the transfer of DL data occurs before the roaming point to allow soft handover with transmission from both the first and second access point, which is discussed with respect to fig. 22 but is not reflected in the flow of the figure [for further discussion on transition forwarding subfield type 1, see paragraph 0088].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the preparation of the another embodiment of Kneckt with the system of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar by flushing the UL buffer as a part of preparing for the path switch, and then, afterwards, at the roaming point, transmitting DFIB/network control information to the second AP. The motive to combine is to allow for a soft handover with transmission of downlink data from both base stations for less disruption to the user.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the prior embodiment of Kneckt fails to disclose flushing, prior to the roaming point, a reorder buffer of the first access point to a network controller of a network in which the user equipment, the first access point, and the second access point operate. (i.e. the embodiment of fig. 22 of Kneckt discloses the flush occurs at link switch, after the roaming point, as it is directed to a scenario where the first AP exclusively provides handover access in the switching period, and, while other options are discussed, it is not clear the state of flushing the link). In the same field of endeavor, another embodiment of Kneckt discloses flushing, prior to the roaming point, a reorder buffer of the first access point to a network controller of a network in which the user equipment, the first access point, and the second access point operate. (Kneckt discloses that during prior to the preparation phase of the handover when preparing to associate with the second AP [paragraph 0139] the link flush may be triggered [paragraph 0062]. This is to allow for the application of forwarding type 1, in which the transfer of DL data occurs before the roaming point to allow soft handover with transmission from both the first and second access point, which is discussed with respect to fig. 22 but is not reflected in the flow of the figure [for discussing on transition forwarding subfield type 1, see paragraph 0088].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the preparation of the another embodiment of Kneckt with the system of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar by flushing the UL buffer when the add link response command is received associating the station to the second AP. The motive to combine is to allow for a soft handover with transmission of downlink data from both base stations for less disruption to the user.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0305409; note also provisional 63/489,733 [“733”] and , 63/451,455 [”455”] – noting that in the case of 733, which includes the elements of 2024/0305409 up until the end of the discussion of fig. 22, parallel citations have not been provided as the disclosure follows the same paragraph and structure format with a difference largely in numbering; for citations to elements after fig. 22, parallel citations are provided to 455) and Chitrakar, et al. (WPO Publication No. WO/2021/126075) as applied to claims 1 and further in view of Canpolat, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0379749).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Kneckt discloses the network control information includes a sequence number counter and a packet number counter for queued data units at the first access point, a QoS state information, and a replay detection state information. (Kneckt discloses that the first AP/MLD device sends buffered DFIB information to the second AP [paragraph 0162-0163]. This includes SNs of the old packets [paragraph 0100-0101, 0084]. This further includes packet number counter “PN”/replay detection state [paragraph 0182; page 17 of 455 – PN transmitted to second MLD; paragraph 0232; 455, page 31- PN used for replay detection] and QoS SCS state [paragraph 0254; page 21 of 455].)
Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar fail to explicitly disclose that SCS state can include rate limiting state information. In the same field of endeavor, Canpolat discloses SCS includes rate limiting state information. (Canpolat discloses that the SCS includes a maximum burst size which indicates the maximum data sent in a delay interval, which is a rate limit, it also includes a minimum service interval which indicates the fastest/maximum rate at which data is to be sent [paragraph 0022].)
Therefore, since Canpolat discloses rate limiting information in the form of burst size and minimum interval, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the burst rate and minimum interval of Canpolat with the system of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar by including a minimum interval and burst size as a part of the exchanges SCS information of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar. The motive to combine is to comply with the SCS specification and to further allow exact specification of QoS flow properties for better user service.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0305409; note also provisional 63/489,733 [“733”] and , 63/451,455 [”455”] – noting that in the case of 733, which includes the elements of 2024/0305409 up until the end of the discussion of fig. 22, parallel citations have not been provided as the disclosure follows the same paragraph and structure format with a difference largely in numbering; for citations to elements after fig. 22, parallel citations are provided to 455) and Chitrakar, et al. (WPO Publication No. WO/2021/126075) as applied to claims 1 and further in view of Oblsson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2022/0095187).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Kneckt discloses prior to the roaming point sending the sequence number counter and the packet number counter to the second access point (Kneckt discloses that the first AP/MLD device sends buffered DFIB information to the second AP [paragraph 0162-0163]. This includes highest SNs of the old packets [paragraph 0100-0101, 0084]. This further includes highest packet number counter “PN”/replay detection state [paragraph 0182; page 17 of 455 – PN transmitted to second MLD; paragraph 0232; 455, page 31- PN used for replay detection] and QoS SCS state [paragraph 0254; page 21 of 455].)
Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar fails to disclose incrementing the sequence number counter and the packet number counter or that the sending of the sequence number counter and the packet number counter to the second access point occurs after incrementing the sequence number counter and the packet number counter. In the same field of endeavor, Oblsson discloses incrementing the sequence number counter and the packet number counter or that the sending of the sequence number counter and the packet number counter to the second access point occurs after incrementing the sequence number counter and the packet number counter. (Oblsson discloses that when transferring incremental packet sequence information, such as the SN and PN of Kneckt, as a part of acknowledged mode trasission soft handover state transfer between the devices, the sending device may increment the sequence numbers by 1 so the receiving device may know where the numbering is to begin in the transfer [paragarphs 0209-0231, in particular 0211].)
Therefore, since Oblsson discloses incremental transfer, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the incremental transfers of Oblsson with the system of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar by incrementing the sequence number and packet number prior to transmission from the first access point so that the second access point knows where the numbering of the sequence number and packet number is to begin. The motive to combine is to allow smooth transition without having to carry out packet and sequence number reassignment or reset for less overhead and packet dropping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Kneckt discloses the first condition comprises receiving a notification from the user equipment that the user equipment has switched connectivity from the first access point to the second access point. (Kneckt discloses when the change routing command [fig. 22, element 2260] is received, the first AP ceases transmission to the UE and the handover is complete as the link to the UE is disabled and therefore, it is notification form the UE that the UE has switched to the second access point [paragraph 0159 – change routing disables link to the station at the first AP].)
Lunden (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2015/0282033) discloses the first condition comprises a timeout at the first access point that is longer than a threshold period (paragraph 0052 – handover automatically completes after a timeout without signaling).
Abording a handover based on a new handover such that, the first condition comprises by the second access point, that the user equipment has roamed to a new access point that is different from the first access point or the second access point and completing a handover based on all sequenc number being transmitted such that receiving a notification from the second access point that the second access point has sent most or all of sequence number space to the user equipment for a traffic identifier is also known in the art.
However, each of these limitations are present in a discrete reference which would require the use of three additional reference in addition to the combination of Kneckt as modified by Chitrakar already made. Given the number and type of combinations required to make the five reference rejection under 35 USC 103, it was determined that such a combination would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, claims 5, 12 and 19 have been objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hart, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0358875) – disclosing AP based handovers in MLD systems
Ho, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0114415) – disclosing multi link MLD handover
Fang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0147311) – disclosing multi link MLD handover
Huang, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0040554) – disclosing multi link MLD handover using BAR flushing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights