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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claims 13, 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “collecting…; selecting…” by a distributed multi-link device which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if these steps are performed by “a computer program” or by the “a computer program” implementing a “distributed multi-link device controller”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 15-21 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “collecting…; selecting…” by a distributed multi-link device which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if these steps are performed by “an electronic device” or by the “an electronic device” implementing a “distributed multi-link device controller”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (USPN 20220225200) in view of Huang et al (USPN 20210409958)
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses
an electronic device, comprising a memory and processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to run the computer program so as to execute the following operations: (computing device, FIG. 9 #900, comprising processor, FIG. 9 #910, and memory, FIG. 9 #915, and the processor is operable to execute software stored in memory to perform [0096-0098]
collecting link information of respective links from a plurality of access point (AP) MLDs, wherein the respective links are links between a non-AP MLD and the plurality of AP MLDs (RRM, FIG. 5 #502/serving AP collects link information regarding neighboring AP MLDs [0067-0071], FIGs. 1, 5
selecting a target AP MLD from the plurality of AP MLDs according to the link information of the respective links (RRM, FIG. 5 #502/serving AP performs ranking of AP MLDs and selection of an AP MLD to be ranked highest of list [0073-0077, 0094, 0059]
communicating with the non-AP MLD via the target AP MLD (U-SAP, FIG. 4B #138, communicating with client device, FIG. 4B #104, via new/target AP MLD [0056-0061]
Smith does not expressly disclose “by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller”
Huang discloses by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller (standalone multi-AP controller entity, FIG. 10 #1012/1010 coordinating all activities related to APs [0146-0150], FIGs. 8, 12
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller” as taught by Huang into Smith’s system to relocate decision makings of RRM/serving MLD AP and multi-AP MLD entity into a Multi-AP Controller architecture with the motivation to centralize all decision makings to better coordinate resource management and handover of STAs.
Claim 1 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the storage medium stores a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured to execute the following operations: (computing device, FIG. 9 #900, memory, FIG. 9 #915, and a processor is operable to execute software stored in memory to perform [0096-0098]
collecting link information of respective links from a plurality of access point (AP) MLDs, wherein the respective links are links between a non-AP MLD and the plurality of AP MLDs (RRM, FIG. 5 #502/serving AP collects link information regarding neighboring AP MLDs [0067-0071], FIGs. 1, 5
selecting a target AP MLD from the plurality of AP MLDs according to the link information of the respective links (RRM, FIG. 5 #502/serving AP performs ranking of AP MLDs and selection of an AP MLD to be ranked highest of list [0073-0077, 0094, 0059]
communicating with the non-AP MLD via the target AP MLD (U-SAP, FIG. 4B #138, communicating with client device, FIG. 4B #104, via new/target AP MLD [0056-0061]
Smith does not expressly disclose “by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller”
Huang discloses by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller (standalone multi-AP controller entity, FIG. 10 #1012/1010 coordinating all activities related to APs[0146-0150], FIGs. 8, 12
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “by a distributed multi-link device (MLD) controller” as taught by Huang into Smith’s system to relocate decision makings of RRM/serving MLD AP and multi-AP MLD entity into a Multi-AP Controller architecture with the motivation to centralize all decision makings to better coordinate resource management and handover of STAs.
Regarding claims 4, 17, Smith disclose “scheduling data via an MLD traffic schedule module in the distributed MLD controller, so as to guide the target AP MLD to communicate with the non-AP MLD” U-SAP establishes a TID-to-link map that assigns subsets of TIDs to at least two links allowing data to be routed via target AP MLD [0015, 0021, 0022, 0044-0051], FIGs. 4A, 4B
Regarding claims 5, 18, Smith does not expressly disclose “receiving a discovery request message sent by the AP MLD (s) in a unicast or broadcast manner, and identifying a role of the AP MLD; and replying with or actively sending a discovery response based on the discovery request message to announce role information of the distributed MLD controller”
Huang discloses “receiving a discovery request message sent by the AP MLD (s) in a unicast or broadcast manner” multi-AP controller discovery reusing/extending IEEE 1905.1 carried inside 802.11 data frames [0146-0147]
“and identifying a role of the AP MLD” capability element with bits indicating “support of being a controlling AP”, “support for being coordinated”, and “support of multiple multi-AP groups [0151-0154]
“and replying with or actively sending a discovery response based on the discovery request message to announce role information of the distributed MLD controller” a mechanism for a coordinated AP, e.g. FIG. #1214, to advertise multi-AP group info STAs [0150, 0154-0156]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “receiving a discovery request message sent by the AP MLD (s) in a unicast or broadcast manner, and identifying a role of the AP MLD; and replying with or actively sending a discovery response based on the discovery request message to announce role information of the distributed MLD controller” as taught by Huang into Smith’s system to relocate decision makings of RRM/serving MLD AP and multi-AP MLD entity into a Multi-AP Controller architecture with the motivation to centralize all decision makings to better coordinate resource management and handover of STAs.
Regarding claim 6, Smith does not expressly disclose “receiving a join request message sent by the AP MLD (s), and collecting and maintaining multi-link information carried in the join request message; and
replying to the join request message with a join response message acceptance message, or rejecting the AP MLD from joining a Distributed MLD group”
Huang discloses “receiving a join request message sent by the AP MLD (s), and collecting and maintaining multi-link information carried in the join request message; ” signaling exchanged includes join request message from one of other Aps [0113, 0160] and
“replying to the join request message with a join response message acceptance message, or rejecting the AP MLD from joining a Distributed MLD group” join response message may indicate accept or reject [0161-0163]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “receiving a join request message sent by the AP MLD (s), and collecting and maintaining multi-link information carried in the join request message; and replying to the join request message with a join response message acceptance message, or rejecting the AP MLD from joining a Distributed MLD group” as taught by Huang into Smith’s system to relocate decision makings of RRM/serving MLD AP and multi-AP MLD entity into a Multi-AP Controller architecture with the motivation to centralize all decision makings to better coordinate resource management and handover of STAs.
Regarding claims 9, 21, Smith discloses “receiving data and management messages sent by the AP MLD (s); and/or sending data and management messages to the AP MLD (s)” U-SAP receives data traffic for stations transmitted over network, FIG. 1 #100, serves as an interface for stations to distribution system, TIM/beacon exchange management type signaling [0009, 0050]
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses “wherein upon detection of a change in the link information” a quality of the first link may begin to decrease while a quality of second link begins to increase [0058]
“selecting, by the distributed MLD controller, a new target AP MLD, so as to guide the new target AP MLD to communicate with the non-AP MLD” AP, FIG. 1 #128, discovers, ranks, and provides a candidate list of new AP MLDs to client device [0065-0067, 0073-0078]
Regarding claim 11, Smith does not expressly disclose “wherein the distributed MLD controller is configured with a Distributed MLD Service Management function, and each AP MLD is configured with the Distribution MLD Service Management function”
Huang discloses wherein the distributed MLD controller is configured with a Distributed MLD Service Management function (standalone multi-AP controller entity, FIG. 10 #1012/1010 coordinating all activities related to APs and multi-AP agent, FIG. 10 #1015 [0146-0150], FIGs. 8, 12
“each AP MLD is configured with the Distribution MLD Service Management function” each AP also contains multi-AP agent, FIG. 10 #1015 [0146]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the distributed MLD controller is configured with a Distributed MLD Service Management function, and each AP MLD is configured with the Distribution MLD Service Management function” as taught by Huang into Smith’s system to relocate decision makings of RRM/serving MLD AP and while having a function to communicate with non-AP STAs and reporting to controller motivation to centralize all decision makings to better coordinate resource management and handover of STAs.
Claims 2, 8, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Huang, as applied to claims 1, 13 respectively, and in further view of Hu et al (USPN 20220124855)
Regarding claims 2, 15, combined system of Smith and Huang does not expressly disclose “receiving, by the distributed MLD controller, a multi-link association request that is forwarded by the AP MLD (s) and sent by the non-AP MLD, wherein the multi-link association request is used to indicate a plurality of links associated with the non-AP MLD; and replying, by the distributed MLD controller, the multi-link association request with an acceptance message or a rejection message, and in a case of replying with the rejection message, sending, by the distributed MLD controller, recommended multi-link information to the non-AP MLD, so as to instruct the non-AP MLD to re-initiate a multi-link association request according to the recommended multi-link information”
Hu discloses AP MLD receiving an association request may set the status code field in the ML configuration response frame to REJECTED_WITH_SUGGESTED_CHANGES if it has not accepted the request [0074, 0131, 0132, 0154]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “receiving, by the distributed MLD controller, a multi-link association request that is forwarded by the AP MLD (s) and sent by the non-AP MLD, wherein the multi-link association request is used to indicate a plurality of links associated with the non-AP MLD; and replying, by the distributed MLD controller, the multi-link association request with an acceptance message or a rejection message, and in a case of replying with the rejection message, sending, by the distributed MLD controller, recommended multi-link information to the non-AP MLD, so as to instruct the non-AP MLD to re-initiate a multi-link association request according to the recommended multi-link information” as taught by Hu into combined system of Huang and Smith with the motivation to enable a MLD AP to suggest changes to a STA (Hu, paragraph [0074, 0131, 0132, 0154]
Regarding claims 8, 20, combined system of Smith and Huang does not expressly disclose “sending a configuration request message in a unicast or broadcast manner, wherein the configuration request message carries maintained link information of a plurality of AP MLDs, and requesting the plurality of AP MLDs to modify configuration of the plurality of AP MLDs according to the link information”
Hu discloses “sending a configuration request message in a unicast or broadcast manner” ML configuration request and controller side ML configuration notify/trigger used to initiate reconfiguration [0112-016, 0121-0124], Table 3
“wherein the configuration request message carries maintained link information of a plurality of AP MLDs,” notify/request frames carry a basic variant ML element that includes STA profile for all non AP STAs that are connected, AP is recommending to be connected, or AP is recommending disconnect [0131-0135]
“requesting the plurality of AP MLDs to modify configuration of the plurality of AP MLDs according to the link information” notify/request frames carry a basic variant ML element AP is recommending to be connected and the receiving side is asked to conform its ML configuration/mapping accordingly via request/response exchange [0135-0139]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “sending a configuration request message in a unicast or broadcast manner, wherein the configuration request message carries maintained link information of a plurality of AP MLDs, and requesting the plurality of AP MLDs to modify configuration of the plurality of AP MLDs according to the link information” as taught by Hu into combined system of Huang and Smith with the motivation to enable a MLD to push link-mapping information to another MLD to change its configuration (Hu, paragraph [0006-001]
Claims 3, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Huang, as applied to claims 1, 13 respectively, and in further view of Peng et al (USPN 20140119337)
Regarding claims 3, 16, combined system o f Smith and Huang does not expressly disclose “periodically sending, by the distributed MLD controller, a link measurement request to the plurality of AP MLDs; and receiving, by the distributed MLD controller, the link information of the respective links sent by the plurality of AP MLDs based on the link measurement request”
Peng discloses a controller sending out information acquiring request message to associated Aps and receives measurement/response data back [0067-0070, 0089-0103], FIGs. 3, 4
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “periodically sending, by the distributed MLD controller, a link measurement request to the plurality of AP MLDs; and receiving, by the distributed MLD controller, the link information of the respective links sent by the plurality of AP MLDs based on the link measurement request” as taught by Peng into combined system of Huang and Smith with the motivation to acquire link status of associated APs and STAs for the purpose of resource management.
Claims 7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Huang, as applied to claims 1, 13 respectively, and in further view of Ho et al (WO 2022015502 A1)
Regarding claims 7, 19, combined system of Smith and Huang does not expressly disclose “receiving a notification message sent by the AP MLD (s), and updating and maintaining multi-link information carried in the notification message”
Ho discloses controller, FIG. 8 #802, receiving from an AP MLD pairwise master key (PMK) and an address of non-AP MLD with the PMK generated during initial association between AP MLD and non-AP MLD and controller maintains PMK information [0006, 0008, 0079]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “receiving a notification message sent by the AP MLD (s), and updating and maintaining multi-link information carried in the notification message” as taught by Ho into combined system of Huang and Smith with the motivation to increase security in WLAN.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al (USPN 20230148056) FIG. 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (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 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights