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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Gupta et al. for the "MULTI-LINK PROCEDURE TO IDENTIFY LINK DISABLEMENT IN BASIC SERVICE SET (BSS) TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FRAMES" filed 09/09/2024 has been examined. This application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63581467, filed 09/08/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1-14 disclose different steps of a method for “creating”, “sending”, but fail to indicate the device actually performing each of the steps. It is not clear which entity performs the above functions. The claims should be redrafted to positively recite the method and system of a device carrying out each of the steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1, 12, 14, 15, 18 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.
Claims 1, 15, 18 recite the limitation “BTM request indicates a future link disablement” on lines 3, 6, 4 respectively. It is not clear how, for example by which technical means, the BTM request indicates the future link disablement that will happen. In addition, it is pointed out that the wording of each claims 1, 15, 18 does not require that the indication allows for distinguishing the link disablement with respect to for example the case of a link removal (see paragraph [0015] of the description of the present application). It is not clear what constitutes such “BTM request indicates a future link disablement” are or what is involved in determining “a future link disablement that will happen”. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites the feature “receiving a BTM query” on line 2. It is unclear because the claim fails to define the entity the BTM query is received from. The claim attempt to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 14 recites the feature “receiving a BTM response” on line 1. It is unclear because the claim fails to define the entity the BTM response is received from. The claim attempt to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 sate. or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
7. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1).
As to claim 1, in so far as understood, the references disclose a novel system and method for multi-link reconfiguration, according to the essential features of the claim. Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) discloses a method comprising: creating a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) request (see Fig. 9 and the Abstract: At S901 – AP send BTM request frame to multi-link station device), wherein the BTM request indicates a future link disablement that will happen (The BTM request frame may include first information indicate that the multi-link site device does not perform BSS transfer. For example, the first information may indicate that link removal is about to occur or may indicate that link disabling is about to occur); and sending the BTM request (see Fig. 9 and the Abstract: At S902 - The multi-link site device ignores the BTM request frame, performs a link disabling operation, or performs a link removal operation).
It’s also noted that a Wi-Fi module supporting the BTM messages can send in unicast mode BTM Request frames defined in IEEE amendment 802.11v to each remote item of equipment that it wishes to inform of the deactivation of a BSS. By using the BTM Request messages, it is possible to inform a remote item of equipment of the imminent deactivation of a BSS by positioning an information bit “BSS Termination Included” in a “Request Mode” field of said message.
As to claim 2, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request indicates the future link disablement that will happen in a Request Mode field in a BTM Request frame (see Fig. 5; The request mode field is used to indicate a specific request mode).
As to claim 3, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request indicates the future link disablement that will happen in a Link Disablement Imminent subfield in a Request Mode Field in a BTM Request frame (see Fig. 5; the BTM request frame may also indicate that link disabling is imminent, or the BTM request frame may also indicate that the BSS is about to terminate).
As to claim 4, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein creating the BTM request further comprises setting a Disassociation Imminent subfield to a value of 1 in a BTM Request frame (see Fig. 5; When the Disassociation Imminent field is set to 1, it means that the AP will send a Disassociation frame to disassociate the STA).
As to claim 5, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein creating the BTM request further comprises setting a BSS termination included subfield to a value of 0 or a value of 1 in a BTM Request frame (see Figs. 6-7; The BSS termination included field is used to indicate whether the BSS on the link will be shut down. The aforementioned BSS termination field is also set to 1 in BTM Request frame).
As to claim 6, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein creating the BTM request further comprises setting a Link Removal Imminent subfield to a value of 0 or a value of 1 in a BTM Request frame (see Fig. 8; link removal imminent field to the BTM Request frame is set to 0 to indicate that the link removal will not occur, and is set to 1 to indicate that link removal is about to occur).
As to claim 7, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request further indicates a duration of the future link disablement that will happen (see Fig, 6: The BSS termination duration field carries a BSS termination duration subelement, and indicates the duration of the BSS being terminated, in minutes).
As to claim 8, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request further indicates the duration of the future link disablement that will happen in a Duration subfield of a BSS Termination Duration subfield (see Figs. 3, 8: the BTM request frame may include a BSS Termination Duration subelement. The BTM termination duration may indicate the termination duration of the BSS corresponding to the BTM request frame).
As to claim 9, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein duration subfield is set based on a duration advertised for a future link disablement in a beacon frame (see Figs. 3, 8: Link disabling, AP MLD can carry a task identifier to link mapping element (TID-to-link Mapping element) in the beacon frame to indicate that a link is disabled at a given time).
As to claim 10, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request further includes suggestion for BSS transition candidates to use for association when the future link disablement will happen (see Figs. 5, 7: the BTM request frame may include the BSS termination duration field, and BSS transfer candidate list fields).
As to claim 11, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein sending the BTM request comprises sending the BTM request as broadcast message (see Fig. 5 & the Abstract: the BTM request frame is broadcast and sent for link disabling).
As to claim 12, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein receiving a BTM query and creating the BTM request in response to receiving the BTM query (see Fig. 4: BTM process to perform BSS transfer).
As to claim 13, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein the BTM request comprises an unsolicited request (see Fig. 5: the BSS transfer request corresponding to the BTM request frame, and the request mode field is used to indicate a specific request mode).
As to claim 14, in so far as understood, Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) further teach wherein receiving a BTM response (see Figs. 4, 7: STA sends a BTM response frame to AP at S3, and AP sends an ACK of the BTM response frame at S4).
As to claims 15-17, in so far as understood, they are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-3 examined above. Therefore, claims 15-17 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1-3.
As to claims 18-20, in so far as understood, these claims differ from claims Huang et al. (WO 2025/001884A1) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Huang for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for providing a method and device for multi-link reconfiguration, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Huang et al. (US#12,232,200) multi-link reconfiguration method and apparatus.
The Huang et al. (US#2025/0234405) multi-link reconfiguration method and apparatus.
The Ratnam et al. (US#2023/0121452) shows method and apparatus foe scheduled link muting at an access point.
The Barton et al. (US#12,532,377) shows station association continuity across access point MAC address rotations
The Gupta et al. (US#2026/0067963) techniques to dynamically enable and disable access to premium wireless links of a WLAN for multi-link devices.
The Gupta et al. (US#2026/0019939) shows AP recommendation for AP power save
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
08/14/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights