DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
MLD acronym is being used for the first time in claims 1 and 17.
BA acronym is being used for the first time in claims 5 and 9.
Each acronym should be expanded at least once when first used in the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US-PGPUB 2023/0094149).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an access point (AP) device comprising: a controller configured to determine a frame exchange context for a plurality of frame exchanges with a non-AP device roaming from a current serving AP MLD affiliated with a roaming MLD group identifying address to a new serving AP MLD affiliated with the roaming MLD group identifying address [Para 16, frame exchange is configured to a device that is roaming from one access point to another access point]; and a wireless transceiver configured to conduct the frame exchanges with the non-AP device based on the frame exchange context [Fig. 4A, 406, transceiver is used for frame exchange with the device].
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches a common Media Access Control (MAC) address that is used to identify a group of AP MLDs for association or key negotiation with the non-AP device and to identify the new serving AP MLD to which the non-AP device is roamed to [Fig. 4A and 4B].
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches information for downlink (DL) frame transmission from the new serving AP MLD to the non-AP device [Para 33].
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches information for uplink (UL) frame reception at the new serving AP MLD from the non-AP device [Para 42].
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches a non-AP MLD [Fig. 1, 104].
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches the controller is further configured to determine the frame exchange context for the frame exchanges between the new serving AP MLD and the non-AP device based on a frame exchange context for a plurality of frame exchanges between the current serving AP MLD and the non-AP device [Fig. 4A and 4B].
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches the current serving AP MLD and the new serving AP MLD [Para 16].
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches an AP MLD compatible with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol [Para 19].
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches an access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) compatible with an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 protocol, the AP MLD comprising: a controller configured to determine a frame exchange context for a plurality of frame exchanges with a non-AP MLD roaming from a current serving AP MLD affiliated with a roaming MLD group identifying address to a new serving AP MLD affiliated with the roaming MLD group identifying address, wherein the roaming MLD group identifying address is used to identity a group of AP MLDs for association or key negotiation with the non-AP MLD [Para 16, Fig. 4A and 4B]; and a wireless transceiver configured to conduct the frame exchanges with the non-AP MLD based on the frame exchange context [Fig. 4A, 406].
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches information for downlink (DL) frame transmission from the new serving AP MLD to the non-AP MLD or information for uplink (UL) frame reception at the new serving AP MLD from the non-AP MLD [Para 33 and 42].
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches a method for wireless communications, the method comprising: at a group of access point (AP) multi-link devices (MLDs) identified by a roaming MLD group identifying address, determining a frame exchange context for a plurality of frame exchanges with a non-AP device roaming from a current serving AP MLD affiliated with the roaming MLD group identifying address to a new serving AP MLD affiliated with the roaming MLD group identifying address [Para 16]; and conducting the frame exchanges with the non-AP device based on the frame exchange context [Fig. 4A and 4B].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-PGPUB 2023/0094149) in view of Nayak et al. (USPN 12,720,418).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Smith teaches an AP device and an AP MLD as discussed in rejection of claims 2 and 17.
However, Smith does not teach information regarding whether the non-AP device’s/MLD’s emergency preparedness communications service (EPCS) is enabled.
Nayak teaches information regarding whether the non-AP device’s/MLD’s emergency preparedness communications service (EPCS) is enabled [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine if EPCS is enabled so that coordination with other access points can be done in case of emergency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-10 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang (US-PGPUB 2024/0196298) teaches determining a new serving cell when the acquisition of the location information of the user equipment does not meet the preset condition.
Kumar et al. (USPN 11,785,514) teaches obtaining reselection parameters defining biases to favor connectivity of a user equipment (UE) to a preferred radio access technology (RAT) connectivity capable cell over a non-preferred RAT connectivity capable cell, where the reselection parameters include current serving cell reselection offsets and new serving cell selection offsets.
Rudolf et al. (USPN 9,258,690) teaches indicator that identifies a call as an emergency call may consist of a bit of a flag located in a medium access control frame or an information element that includes an emergency call flag or a reason code. An access point (AP) adds location information to the emergency call.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDRAHAS PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights