DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 09/25/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 13 recited, “the Frequency Segment Channel Number field” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to change to “a Frequency Segment Channel Number field”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 6-7, 11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kneckt et al. (US 2022/0418022) (with an US-Provisional-Application US No. 63/214,096 having earlier priority date 06/23/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Kneckt discloses a method [see Fig. 9, ¶¶ 91-151; a method of AP MLD 112 and non-AP MLD 106 may exchange information about their respective operations, operating parameters, and/or capabilities], comprising:
receiving, by a station (STA) affiliated with a multi-link device (MLD), a respective frame from each of one or more peer STAs on one or more channels in a multi-link operation [see Fig. 9, ¶ 136; receiving, by non-AP MLD 106, the beacon(s) from each of AP MLD (first and/or second AP) on one or more channels in a multi-link operation (see ¶ 129)]; and
performing, by the STA, an operating channel validation regarding a respective channel used by the STA to communicate with each of the one or more peer STAs [see Fig. 9, ¶ 137; performing by determine, by the non-AP MLD/(STA), capability information and/or one or more operating parameter(s) (910)/(operating channel validation) regarding a respective channel used by the STA to communicate with each of the one or more peer STAs; also see step 920, ¶ 148, the non-AP MLD validate a link with the first AP on the new channel)] based on channel center frequency information comprised in operating channel information (OCI) indicated in an OCI element contained in the respective frame [see Fig. 9, ¶ 137; wherein the operation parameter(s) is based on information including traffic patterns, applications executing on the non-AP MLD, battery level of the non-AP MLD, user preferences, parameters of other APs, etc., e.g., in addition to or instead of the parameter(s) for the first AP, e.g., as indicated in the beacons; also see ¶¶ 216, 221-223, OCI may indicate the channels and/or parameters for one or more AP, based on validating the AP using the OCI].
Regarding claim 6, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 1.
Kneckt further discloses wherein each of the one or more peer STAs comprises an Operating Channel Validation Capable (OCVC) STA [see ¶¶ 216-217; wherein each of the one or more peer non-AP MLD (e.g., STA) comprises an Operating Channel Validation (OCV) capable STA (non-AP MLD to perform OCV of multiple links)].
Regarding claim 7, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 6.
Kneckt further discloses wherein the performing of the operating channel validation comprises validating the OCI received in protected messages used in key establishment and confirmation with each of the one or more peer STAs by determining whether channel information in the OCI matches one or more parameters of a current operating channel of the STA [see Fig. 43, ¶¶ 230, 242, ; wherein the performing of the operating channel validation comprises validating the OCI received in protected messages used in key establishment and confirmation with each of the one or more peer STAs by determining whether channel information in the OCI matches one or more parameters of a current operating channel of the STA].
Regarding claim 1, Kneckt discloses a method [see Fig. 9, ¶¶ 91-151; a method of AP MLD 112 and non-AP MLD 106 may exchange information about their respective operations, operating parameters, and/or capabilities], comprising:
receiving, by a station (STA) affiliated with a multi-link device (MLD), a respective frame from each of one or more peer STAs on one or more channels in a multi-link operation [see Fig. 9, ¶ 136; receiving, by non-AP MLD 106, the beacon(s) from each of AP MLD (first and/or second AP) on one or more channels in a multi-link operation (see ¶ 129)]; and
performing, by the STA, an operating channel validation regarding a respective channel used by the STA to communicate with each of the one or more peer STAs [see Fig. 9, ¶ 137; performing by determine, by the non-AP MLD/(STA), capability information and/or one or more operating parameter(s) (910)/(operating channel validation) regarding a respective channel used by the STA to communicate with each of the one or more peer STAs; also see step 920, ¶ 148, the non-AP MLD validate a link with the first AP on the new channel)] based on channel center frequency information comprised in operating channel information (OCI) indicated in an OCI element contained in the respective frame [see Fig. 9, ¶ 137; wherein the operation parameter(s) is based on information including traffic patterns, applications executing on the non-AP MLD, battery level of the non-AP MLD, user preferences, parameters of other APs, etc., e.g., in addition to or instead of the parameter(s) for the first AP, e.g., as indicated in the beacons; also see ¶¶ 216, 221-223, OCI may indicate the channels and/or parameters (included in RNR element, see Fig. 11) for one or more AP, based on validating the AP using the OCI]
wherein the OCI element comprises at least an Operating Class field, a Primary Channel Number field and a Frequency Segment Channel Number field which are repeated for each link of a plurality of links used in the multi-link operation [see Figs. 11, 12, 13, ¶¶ 154, 158-161; wherein the RNR element /(OCI element) comprises at least an Operating Class field, a Primary Channel Number field and a Frequency Segment Channel Number field (Fig. 13, TBTT info) which are repeated for each link of a plurality of links used in the multi-link operation].
Regarding claims 11 and 17-18, the claims recite an apparatus implementable in a multi-link device (MLD), comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly; and a processor coupled to the transceiver (Fig. 2, ¶¶ 58-60; a device 100 comprising memory 105, wireless communication circuitry 130, processing element 101) and configured to perform the method recited as in claims 1 and 6-7 respectively; therefore, claims 11 and 17-18 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 1 and 6-7 respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Kneckt discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Kneckt further discloses wherein the OCI element comprises at least an Operating Class field, a Primary Channel Number field and a Frequency Segment Channel Number field which are repeated for each link of a plurality of links used in the multi-link operation [see Figs. 11, 12, 13, ¶¶ 154, 158-161; wherein the RNR element /(OCI element) comprises at least an Operating Class field, a Primary Channel Number field and a Frequency Segment Channel Number field (Fig. 13, TBTT info) which are repeated for each link of a plurality of links used in the multi-link operation].
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Kneckt et al. (US 2022/0418022) (with an US-Provisional-Application US No. 63/214,096 having earlier priority date 06/23/2021) in view of Kwon et al. (US 2021/0321388).
Regarding claims 2, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a center frequency of the respective channel.
However, Kwon discloses wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a center frequency of the respective channel [see ¶¶ 21-26; wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a center frequency of the respective channel].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a center frequency of the respective channel” as taught by Kwon in the system of Kneckt, so that it would facilitate communications in which a type of stations (e.g., legacy) recognize a first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency, and another type of station (e.g., enhanced) recognize the first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency as well as enhanced channels of differing bandwidth/center channel frequency [see Kwon; ¶ 7].
Regarding claim 3, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a primary segment being used currently.
However, Kwon discloses wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a primary segment being used currently [see ¶¶ 27, 64, 67, Claim 6; wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a primary segment being used currently].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a primary segment being used currently” as taught by Kwon in the system of Kneckt, so that it would facilitate communications in which a type of stations (e.g., legacy) recognize a first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency, and another type of station (e.g., enhanced) recognize the first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency as well as enhanced channels of differing bandwidth/center channel frequency [see Kwon; ¶ 7].
Regarding claim 4, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being not 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a secondary segment being used currently.
However, Kwon discloses wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being not 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a secondary segment being used currently [see ¶¶ 72-75; wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being not 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a secondary segment being used currently (set EHT_CCFS0/EHT_CCFS1 indicate the channel center frequency of primary 80 MHz and secondary 160 MHz channel)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein responsive to a bandwidth of the respective channel being not 320 MHz, a value in the Frequency Segment Channel Number field is set to a channel center frequency index of a secondary segment being used currently” as taught by Kwon in the system of Kneckt, so that it would facilitate communications in which a type of stations (e.g., legacy) recognize a first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency, and another type of station (e.g., enhanced) recognize the first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency as well as enhanced channels of differing bandwidth/center channel frequency [see Kwon; ¶ 7].
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Kneckt and Kwon discloses the method of claim 4.
Kneckt does not explicitly disclose wherein the bandwidth of the respective channel is 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz or 80+80 MHz.
However, Kwon discloses wherein the bandwidth of the respective channel is 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz or 80+80 MHz [see ¶¶ 68-69; wherein the bandwidth of the respective channel is 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz or 80+80 MHz].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the bandwidth of the respective channel is 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz or 80+80 MHz” as taught by Kwon in the system of Kneckt, so that it would facilitate communications in which a type of stations (e.g., legacy) recognize a first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency, and another type of station (e.g., enhanced) recognize the first channel bandwidth/center channel frequency as well as enhanced channels of differing bandwidth/center channel frequency [see Kwon; ¶ 7].
Regarding claims 13-16, the claims recite the apparatus of claim 11, to perform the method steps recited as in claims 2-5 respectively; therefore, claims 13-16 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 2- 5 respectively.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Kneckt et al. (US 2022/0418022) (with an US-Provisional-Application US No. 63/214,096 having earlier priority date 06/23/2021) in view of Ouzieli et al. (US 2023/0362647).
Regarding claim 8, Kneckt discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose discarding, by the STA based on a result of the operating channel validation, the respective frame responsive to the respective frame being not on a same primary channel used by the STA to receive one or more physical-layer protocol data units (PPDUs) from a respective one of the one or more peer STAs.
However, Ouzieli discloses discarding, by the STA based on a result of the operating channel validation, the respective frame responsive to the respective frame being not on a same primary channel used by the STA to receive one or more physical-layer protocol data units (PPDUs) from a respective one of the one or more peer STAs [see ¶ 43; discard the beacon frame in case a mismatch between a calculated message integrity code (MIC) and the MIC 309].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “discarding, by the STA based on a result of the operating channel validation, the respective frame responsive to the respective frame being not on a same primary channel used by the STA to receive one or more physical-layer protocol data units (PPDUs) from a respective one of the one or more peer STAs” as taught by Ouzieli in the system of Kneckt, so that it would allow validation by the client device of the operating channel that is used between the AP and the client device [see Ouzieli; ¶ 22].
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the apparatus of claim 11, to perform the method steps recited as in claim 8; therefore, claim 19 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 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
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, ALEXANDER et al. (WO 2022/020586) and Seok et al. (US 2021/0315025) are also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1 and 11 (See ALEXANDER; Figs. 4, 5; ¶¶ 57-75; See Seok; Figs. 1, 2; ¶¶ 51-59).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights