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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2023/0072177) in view of Hong et al. (US 2023/0389101).
For Claims 1 and 6, Guo teaches a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, and a receiving multi-link device (MLD) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the receiving MLD comprising: a memory; a transceiver; and a processor being operatively connected to the memory and the transceiver (see paragraphs 33, 34), the method comprising:
transmitting, by a receiving multi-link device (MLD), a Multi-Link (ML) probe request frame to a transmitting MLD through a first link (see abstract); and
receiving, by the receiving MLD, an ML probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link (see paragraphs 10, 109),
wherein the transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating on the first link and a second transmitting STA operating on a second link (see Figures 3a-b, paragraphs 87-88),
wherein the receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating on the first link and a second receiving STA operating on the second link (see Figures 3a-b, paragraphs 87-88),
wherein the ML probe request frame includes a first frame body and a probe request ML element (see paragraphs 119, 162), and
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes a first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the second transmitting STA (see paragraphs 159, 161-162: outside MLE, all APs indicated by bitmap, not individually identified).
Guo as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches requesting the same partial information for all transmitting STAs (see paragraphs 201, 207: information for all links, partial (not redundant) information).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to avoid transmitting redundant information as in Hong when implementing the method of Guo. The motivation would be to reduce overhead.
For Claim 7, Guo teaches a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a transmitting multi-link device (MLD), a Multi-Link (ML) probe request frame from a receiving MLD through a first link (see abstract); and
transmitting, by the transmitting MLD, an ML probe response frame to the receiving MLD through the first link (see paragraphs 10, 109),
wherein the transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating on the first link and a second transmitting STA operating on a second link (see Figures 3a-b, paragraphs 87-88),
wherein the receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating on the first link and a second receiving STA operating on the second link (see Figures 3a-b, paragraphs 87-88),
wherein the ML probe request frame includes a first frame body and a probe request ML element (see paragraphs 119, 162), and
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes a first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the second transmitting STA (see paragraphs 159, 161-162: outside MLE, all APs indicated by bitmap, not individually identified).
Guo as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches requesting the same partial information for all transmitting STAs (see paragraphs 201, 207: information for all links, partial (not redundant) information).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to avoid transmitting redundant information as in Hong when implementing the method of Guo. The motivation would be to reduce overhead.
For Claims 2 and 8, Guo as modified by Hong above further teaches the method, wherein the transmitting MLD further includes a third transmitting STA operating on a third link (see paragraphs 85, 98: more links and stations),
wherein the receiving MLD further includes a third receiving STA operating on the third link (see paragraphs 85, 98: more links and stations),
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes the first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the third transmitting STA (see paragraphs 159, 161-162: outside MLE, all APs indicated by bitmap, not individually identified; with redundancy avoided as in Hong).
For Claims 3 and 9, Guo as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches the method, wherein the ML probe response frame includes a second frame body and a basic ML element (see paragraph 201),
wherein the second frame body includes a second request element (see paragraph 201),
wherein the second request element includes a value for partial information requested by the first request element (see paragraph 201).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for efficient transmission of information as in Hong when implementing the method of Guo. The motivation would be to reduce overhead.
For Claims 4 and 10, Guo as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches the method, wherein the basic ML element includes profile subelements of the second and third transmitting STA (see paragraph 201: per STA provides provided),
wherein the profile subelement of the second transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element (see paragraph 201: per STA provides provided),
wherein the profile subelement of the third transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element (see paragraph 201: per STA provides provided).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for efficient transmission of information as in Hong when implementing the method of Guo. The motivation would be to reduce overhead.
For Claims 5 and 11, Guo as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches the method, wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same complete information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body does not include the first request element (see paragraph 200).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide for efficient transmission of information as in Hong when implementing the method of Guo. The motivation would be to reduce overhead.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12113880. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each teaches matter found in the other.
For Claim 1, Claim 1 of 12113880 teaches a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a receiving multi-link device (MLD), a Multi-Link (ML) probe request frame to a transmitting MLD through a first link; and
receiving, by the receiving MLD, an ML probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link,
wherein the transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating on the first link and a second transmitting STA operating on a second link,
wherein the receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating on the first link and a second receiving STA operating on the second link,
wherein the ML probe request frame includes a first frame body and a probe request ML element, and
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes a first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the second transmitting STA.
For Claim 2, Claim 2 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting MLD further includes a third transmitting STA operating on a third link,
wherein the receiving MLD further includes a third receiving STA operating on the third link,
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes the first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the third transmitting STA.
For Claim 3, Claim 3 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the ML probe response frame includes a second frame body and a basic ML element,
wherein the second frame body includes a second request element,
wherein the second request element includes a value for partial information requested by the first request element.
For Claim 4, Claim 4 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the basic ML element includes profile subelements of the second and third transmitting STA,
wherein the profile subelement of the second transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element,
wherein the profile subelement of the third transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element.
For Claim 5, Claim 5 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same complete information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body does not include the first request element.
For Claim 6, Claim 6 of 12113880 teaches a receiving multi-link device (MLD) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the receiving MLD comprising:
a memory; a transceiver; and a processor being operatively connected to the memory and the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to:
transmit a Multi-Link (ML) probe request frame to a transmitting MLD through a first link; and
receive an ML probe response frame from the transmitting MLD through the first link,
wherein the transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating on the first link and a second transmitting STA operating on a second link,
wherein the receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating on the first link and a second receiving STA operating on the second link,
wherein the ML probe request frame includes a first frame body and a probe request ML element, and
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes a first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the second transmitting STA.
For Claim 7, Claim 7 of 12113880 teaches a method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, the method comprising:
receiving, by a transmitting multi-link device (MLD), a Multi-Link (ML) probe request frame from a receiving MLD through a first link; and
transmitting, by the transmitting MLD, an ML probe response frame to the receiving MLD through the first link,
wherein the transmitting MLD includes a first transmitting station (STA) operating on the first link and a second transmitting STA operating on a second link,
wherein the receiving MLD includes a first receiving STA operating on the first link and a second receiving STA operating on the second link,
wherein the ML probe request frame includes a first frame body and a probe request ML element, and
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes a first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the second transmitting STA.
For Claim 8, Claim 8 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the transmitting MLD further includes a third transmitting STA operating on a third link,
wherein the receiving MLD further includes a third receiving STA operating on the third link,
wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same partial information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body includes the first request element, and the probe request ML element does not include a profile subelement of the third transmitting STA.
For Claim 9, Claim 9 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the ML probe response frame includes a second frame body and a basic ML element,
wherein the second frame body includes a second request element,
wherein the second request element includes a value for partial information requested by the first request element.
For Claim 10, Claim 10 of 12113880 teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the basic ML element includes profile subelements of the second and third transmitting STA,
wherein the profile subelement of the second transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element,
wherein the profile subelement of the third transmitting STA includes a value for the partial information requested by the first request element.
For Claim 11, Claim 11 of 121138880 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein when the first receiving STA requests the same complete information for all transmitting STAs, the first frame body does not include the first request element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chu et al. (US 2021/0314846) taches a system in which a multilink device uses a probe request frame to request partial information of another device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 7/31/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights