DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2A, and 2B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated1. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 9, 17, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17: the claims recite the limitation “indicating a recommendation for a number of simultaneous links” (claim 1, lines 5-6). It is unclear if this limitation includes interpretation for a single indicated link or if a plurality of indicated links is required. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted to require either a single link or a plurality (e.g. “indicating a recommendation for one or more simultaneous links”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2025/0142459 A1 (hereinafter “Patwardhan”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Patwardhan, in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0308938 A1 (hereinafter “Sun”) or U.S. Publication No. 2022/0232276 A1 (hereinafter “Chitrakar”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17: Patwardhan teaches a non-access point (AP) multi-link device (MLD) in a wireless network, the non-AP MLD comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to:
receive a first frame from an AP MLD indicating a recommendation for a number of simultaneous links (see, e.g., figure 2, [0050]-[0055], [0061]-[0064]; an AP MLD sends a frame with link recommendation); and
transmit a second frame to the AP MLD indicating whether or not the non-AP MLD intends to follow the recommendation (see, e.g., figure 2, [0050]-[0055], [0061]-[0064]; a non-AP MLD responds on the link(s)).
Patwardhan does not explicitly state wherein multiple links are recommended (i.e. “indicating a recommendation for a number of simultaneous links”; emphasis added). To the extent the respective limitation is not inherent to Patwardhan, it is nevertheless taught by Sun (see e.g., [0118]-[0124], [0167]-[0170]; note multiple link recommendation; note also overlapping teachings with respect to signaling used for following recommendations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Sun, such as the signaling or recommendation functionality, within the system of Patwardhan, in order to improve multi-link usage efficiency.
Alternatively to Sun, the said feature is taught by Chitrakar (see, e.g., figures 24, 26, [0056]-[0061]; note multiple link recommendation; note also overlapping teachings with respect to signaling used for following recommendations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chitrakar, such as the signaling or recommendation functionality, within the system of Patwardhan, in order to reduce signaling overhead.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 1 is applicable to the device and method of claims 9 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claims 8 and 16: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar further teaches wherein the second frame indicates that the non-AP MLD does not intend to follow the recommendation and indicates an actual number of simultaneous links the non-AP MLD intends to use for communication with the AP MLD (see, e.g., Patwardhan [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062]; Sun [0118]-[0124]; Chitrakar [0056]-[0061]; a non-AP MLD responds with a link indication). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 8 is applicable to the device of claims 16.
11. Claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan, alternatively in further view of either Sun or Chitrakar, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0254802 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”) or U.S. Publication No. 2024/0056974 A1 (hereinafter “Chu”).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar further teaches wherein one or more of the recommended links may be used (see, e.g., Patwardhan [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062]; Sun [0118]-[0124]; Chitrakar [0056]-[0061]), but does not explicitly state the features of active mode or power saving mode.
Therefore, Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein: the second frame indicates one or more links on which the non-AP MLD intends to be in an active mode or a power save mode; and a number of the one or more links is less than or equal to the recommended number of simultaneous links. To the extent these features are not inherent to Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar (e.g. by virtue of active connectivity), they are nevertheless taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0177]-[0180], [0190]-[0196], [0224], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0059], [0081], [0154]-[0161]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 2 is applicable to the device and method of claims 10 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar further teaches wherein one or more of the recommended links may be used (see, e.g., Patwardhan [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062]; Sun [0118]-[0124]; Chitrakar [0056]-[0061]), but does not explicitly state the features of active mode or power saving mode.
Therefore, Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein: the second frame is transmitted on one or more links on which the non-AP MLD intends to stay in an active mode or power save mode; and a number of the one or more links is less than or equal to the recommended number of simultaneous links. To the extent these features are not inherent to Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar (e.g. by virtue of active connectivity), they are nevertheless taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0177]-[0180], [0190]-[0196], [0224], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0059], [0081], [0154]-[0161]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 3 is applicable to the device and method of claims 11 and 19, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar further teaches wherein one or more of the recommended links may be used (see, e.g., Patwardhan [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062]; Sun [0118]-[0124]; Chitrakar [0056]-[0061]), but does not explicitly state the features of active mode or power saving mode.
Therefore, Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein the second frame indicates that the non-AP MLD does not intend to follow the recommendation and the non-AP MLD is in an active mode or in a power save mode on a number of one or more links that is greater than the recommended number of simultaneous links. To the extent these features are not inherent to Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar (e.g. by virtue of active connectivity), they are nevertheless taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0177]-[0180], [0190]-[0196], [0224], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0059], [0081], [0154]-[0161]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 4 is applicable to the device and method of claims 12 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 and 13: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar further teaches wherein one or more of the recommended links may be used (see, e.g., Patwardhan [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062]; Sun [0118]-[0124]; Chitrakar [0056]-[0061]), but does not explicitly state the features of active mode or power saving mode.
Therefore, Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein: the second frame is transmitted on one or more links on which the non-AP MLD intends to stay in an active mode or a power save mode; and a number of the one or more links is greater than the recommended number of simultaneous links. To the extent these features are not inherent to Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar (e.g. by virtue of active connectivity), they are nevertheless taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0177]-[0180], [0190]-[0196], [0224], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0059], [0081], [0154]-[0161]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to conserve power.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 5 is applicable to the device of claims 13.
Regarding claims 6 and 14: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein the processor is further configured to: receive at a later time a third frame from the AP MLD indicating an updated recommended number of simultaneous links that indicates a different value from the recommend[ed] number of simultaneous links in the first frame. However, these features are taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0241], [0248], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to adapt to network conditions.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0163]-[0169). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to adapt to network conditions.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 6 is applicable to the device of claims 14.
Regarding claims 7 and 15: Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar does not explicitly state wherein the processor is further configured to set a critical update flag field in a beacon frame or a probe response frame to provide an indication of a critical update. However, these features are taught by Kim (see, e.g., [0241], [0248], [0276]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to MLO link setup). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Kim, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to adapt to network conditions.
Alternatively to Kim, the said features are taught by Chu (see, e.g., [0163]-[0169). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chu, such as the signaling or mode functionality, within the system of Patwardhan alternatively modified by Sun or Chitrakar, in order to adapt to network conditions.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 7 is applicable to the device of claims 15.
Relevant Art
12. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 See, e.g., the corresponding figures in U.S. Publication No. 2022/0303907.
