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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 11/04/2024.
Claims 29-48 are pending in this application, with claims 29,34,40,44 and 47-48 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 32 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 32, the claim recites “. . a second frame . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention of claim 30 and not establishing a relationship between claims 30 and 32
In claim 43, the claim recites “. . a second frame . .” which is unclear to relate to the claimed invention of claim 41 and not establishing a relationship between claims 41 and 43
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 47-48 recite “. . instructions for causing . .” which are directed to program instruction (i.e. software per se) without reciting how and who executes the instructions, which does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
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.
Claims 29,34,40,44 and 47-48 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. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claims 29,34,40,44 and 47-48, the phrase “in response to receive private SSID from the second AP MLD when second AP is created based on an association between the MLD address and a private SSID” is unclear as to where an association exists and why a private SSID also exists, what triggers determining whether the association exists, etc.
Claims 30-33 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 29.
Claims 35-39 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 34.
Claims 41-43 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 40.
Claims 45-46 are rejected based upon claim dependency to claim 44.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the second apparatus" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no reference to refer back to.
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.
Claims 29,34,40,44 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soave (US 2018/0035248 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Soave”) in view of KIM et al. (US 2026/0281211 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claims 29,34,40,44 and 47-48, Soave discloses the apparatuses (Soave Fig.1), comprising: affiliate with a non-access-point multi-link device, non-AP MLD (Soave Fig.1 Para[0033-34] A mobile device associates with Wi-Fi network); transmit, to a first access-point, AP, in a second apparatus, a multi-link device medium access control, MLD MAC, address of the non-AP MLD (Soave Fig.3B,9 Para[0087] As part of User registration with network, a MAC address is provided); in response to a second access-point multi-link device, AP MLD, in the second apparatus being created based on an association between the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD and a private service set identifier, SSID, of the second AP MLD (Soave Fig.9 Para[0077,0087] An AP for private session is activated (i.e. created) when user MAC address is detected and stored personal SSID existed), receive the private SSID from the second AP MLD (Soave Fig.9 Para[0077,0087] The activation of access point with personal SSID); and establish a connection between the apparatus and the second AP MLD using at least the private SSID (Soave Fig.1,9 Para[0077,0087] The communication at the visiting place).
Soave does not explicitly disclose non-AP, AP MLD and MLD MAC address.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses non-AP, AP MLD and MLD MAC address (Kim Fig.13,17 Para[0180,0211] An AP MLD and a non-AP MLD communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave to have the feature of “non-AP, AP MLD and MLD MAC address” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to improve throughput and reducing signaling overhead (Kim Para[0017]).
Specifically for claims 29 and 47, Soave discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Soave Fig.5A A processor) and memory (Soave Fig.5A A memory).
Specifically for claims 34 and 48, Soave discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Soave Fig.6 Para[0076] A processor) and memory (Soave Fig.6 Para[0076] A memory).
Claims 30-32,35,37,41,43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soave in view of Kim and further in view of CHITRAKAR et al. (US 2024/0129271 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chitrakar”).
Regarding claims 30,35,41 and 45, Soave in view of Kim discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Soave in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving, from the first AP, a request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD, transmit to the first AP a response to the request, the response comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD.
However, Chitrakar from the same field of invention discloses in response to receiving, from the first AP, a request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD, transmit to the first AP a response to the request, the response comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD (Chitrakar Fig.5 Para[0086] A request for MLD address. A response for the request is sent including MAC address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “in response to receiving, from the first AP, a request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD, transmit to the first AP a response to the request, the response comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD” as taught by Chitrakar. The motivation would have been to provide link layer address resolution for improved performance (Chitrakar Para[0006]).
Regarding claim 31, Soave in view of Kim and Chitrakar discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Chitrakar further discloses receiving a first frame comprising the request (Chitrakar Fig.5 Para[0086] A request frame for MLD address).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “receiving a first frame comprising the request” as taught by Chitrakar. The motivation would have been to provide link layer address resolution for improved performance (Chitrakar Para[0006]).
Regarding claims 32,37 and 43, Soave in view of Kim and Chitrakar discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Chitrakar further discloses transmit a second frame comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD (Chitrakar Fig.5 Para[0086] A response frame with MLD address).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “transmit a second frame comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD” as taught by Chitrakar. The motivation would have been to provide link layer address resolution for improved performance (Chitrakar Para[0006]).
Claims 33,38,42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soave in view of Kim and further in view of CHITRAKAR et al. (US 2023/0232315 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Chitrakar-2315”).
Regarding claims 33,38,42 and 46, Soave in view of Kim discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Soave in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose transmit a multi-link probe request to the first AP, the multi-link probe request comprising a probe request variant multi-link element, the element comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD.
However, Chitrakar-2315 from the same field of invention discloses transmit a multi-link probe request to the first AP, the multi-link probe request comprising a probe request variant multi-link element, the element comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD (Chitrakar-2315 Para[0009] A probe request frame with multi-link element with MLD MAC address is transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “transmit a multi-link probe request to the first AP, the multi-link probe request comprising a probe request variant multi-link element, the element comprising the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD” as taught by Chitrakar-2315. The motivation would have been to provide EHT virtualization for MLDs (Chitrakar-2315 Para[0006]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soave in view of Kim and further in view of VAN OOST et al. (US 2023/0284011 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Oost”) and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2023/0148056 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Guo”).
Regarding claim 36, Soave in view of Kim discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Soave in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose receive a probe request from the first apparatus, the probe request comprising capability information of the first apparatus, an SSID and an MAC address of the first apparatus; and transmit the request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD in response to at least one of the following: determining, based on the capability information of the first apparatus, that the first apparatus is affiliated with the non-AP MLD, the SSID in the probe request being associated with the second AP MLD, or the MAC address of the first apparatus being not stored at the second apparatus.
However, Oost from the same field of invention discloses receive a probe request from the first apparatus, the probe request comprising capability information of the first apparatus, an SSID and an MAC address of the first apparatus (Oost Para[0014,0019-20] A probe request includes capabilities of STA, SSID and Mac address).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “receive a probe request from the first apparatus, the probe request comprising capability information of the first apparatus, an SSID and an MAC address of the first apparatus” as taught by Oost. The motivation would have been for detection of wireless device capabilities (Oost Para[0002]).
Soave in view of Kim and Oost does not explicitly disclose transmit the request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD in response to at least one of the following: determining, based on the capability information of the first apparatus, that the first apparatus is affiliated with the non-AP MLD, the SSID in the probe request being associated with the second AP MLD, or the MAC address of the first apparatus being not stored at the second apparatus.
However, Guo from the same field of invention discloses transmit the request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD in response to at least one of the following: determining, based on the capability information of the first apparatus, that the first apparatus is affiliated with the non-AP MLD, the SSID in the probe request being associated with the second AP MLD, or the MAC address of the first apparatus being not stored at the second apparatus (Guo Fig.5 Para[0040] A response from the AP carries MLD address corresponding to MLD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave, Kim and Oost to have the feature of “transmit the request for the MLD MAC address of the non-AP MLD in response to at least one of the following: determining, based on the capability information of the first apparatus, that the first apparatus is affiliated with the non-AP MLD, the SSID in the probe request being associated with the second AP MLD, or the MAC address of the first apparatus being not stored at the second apparatus” as taught by Guo. The motivation would have been implementing efficient probing and association between MLDs (Guo Para[0005]).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soave in view of Kim and further in view of Gan et al. (US 2023/0071851 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Gan”).
Regarding claim 39, Soave in view of Kim discloses the apparatuses and the MLDs as explained above for Claim 29. Soave in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose configured to create the second AP MLD based on context information of the second AP MLD which is stored locally.
However, Gan from the same field of invention discloses configured to create the second AP MLD based on context information of the second AP MLD which is stored locally (Gan Para[0252] The MLD element is stored for device information to be used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Soave and Kim to have the feature of “configured to create the second AP MLD based on context information of the second AP MLD which is stored locally” as taught by Gan. The motivation would have been to reduce power consumption (Gan Para[0007]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights