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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 has a typographical error reciting “The relay SWA” instead of “The relay STA”.
Appropriate correction is 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 (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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
SEDIN discloses “An access point (AP) station in a wireless network, the AP comprising: a communication interface to communicate with one or more relay stations (STAs)” (See Fig. 7, TX/RX 720, Fig. 2b, [0110] A MLD AP entity comprises multiple APs, one AP per link. To enhance understanding, we refer to APs that are not co-located as AP nodes. An AP node 1 is located in a different entity than an AP node 2. However, as will be described later herein, AP node 2 may be used to form the MLD AP1 entity, i.e., a node entity. [0189] AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. Hence, AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link. Note: AP node 1 is interpreted as the AP, and is in communication with AP node 2 which acts as a relay/ repeater and corresponds to the claimed relay STA); “and a processor coupled to the communication interface, the processor configured to: establish a logical AP multi-link device (MLD) comprising the AP and the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 7, controller 710, [0110] A MLD AP entity comprises multiple APs, one AP per link. To enhance understanding, we refer to APs that are not co-located as AP nodes. An AP node 1 is located in a different entity than an AP node 2. However, as will be described later herein, AP node 2 may be used to form the MLD AP1 entity, i.e., a node entity. [0111] For example, AP node X refers to a physical AP which is not necessarily co-located with an AP node Y. A MLD AP X refers to a logical MLD which may comprise non co-located physical AP nodes. [0189] Since AP node 1 and AP node 2 are configured to function as a single MLD AP1 entity, in this example, AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. Hence, AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link), “wherein the logical AP MLD comprises an upper medium access control (UMAC) layer in the AP and a lower MAC (LMAC) layer in the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 6b, upper MAC at AP node 1, and lower MAC at AP node 2 which acts as a relay node. [0215] FIG. 6b illustrates a split between MLD AP1 and MLD AP2 assuming the lower MAC is used at AP2); “wherein an UMAC operation is performed at the AP and a LMAC operation is performed at the one or more relay STAs” (See [0216] The split between an upper MAC and a lower MAC. This would mean that AP node 2 may still manage channel access related procedures such as link adaptation and backoff counters. However, AP node 1 would still take care of security).
Regarding claim 7,
SEDIN discloses “A relay station (STA) station in a wireless network, the relay STA comprising” (See [0026] the second node is further configured to relay or repeat data in a second link of the multi-link connection. [0189] Since AP node 1 and AP node 2 are configured to function as a single MLD AP1 entity. AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link. Note: AP node 2 is interpreted as the claimed relay STA since it performs the relay/ repeater role): “a communication interface to communicate with an access point (AP)” (See Fig. 7, TX/RX 720, See Fig. 2b, [0110] A MLD AP entity comprises multiple APs, one AP per link. To enhance understanding, we refer to APs that are not co-located as AP nodes. An AP node 1 is located in a different entity than an AP node 2. However, as will be described later herein, AP node 2 may be used to form the MLD AP1 entity, i.e., a node entity. [0189] AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. Hence, AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link); “and a processor coupled to the communication interface, the processor configured to” (See Fig. 7, controller 710): “establish a logical AP multi-link device (MLD) comprising the AP and the relay STA” (See Fig. 7, controller 710, [0110] A MLD AP entity comprises multiple APs, one AP per link. To enhance understanding, we refer to APs that are not co-located as AP nodes. An AP node 1 is located in a different entity than an AP node 2. However, as will be described later herein, AP node 2 may be used to form the MLD AP1 entity, i.e., a node entity. [0111] For example, AP node X refers to a physical AP which is not necessarily co-located with an AP node Y. A MLD AP X refers to a logical MLD which may comprise non co-located physical AP nodes. [0189] Since AP node 1 and AP node 2 are configured to function as a single MLD AP1 entity, in this example, AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. Hence, AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link), “wherein the logical AP MLD comprises an upper medium access control (UMAC) layer in the AP and a lower MAC (LMAC) layer in the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 6b, upper MAC at AP node 1, and lower MAC at AP node 2 which acts as a relay node. [0215] FIG. 6b illustrates a split between MLD AP1 and MLD AP2 assuming the lower MAC is used at AP2); “wherein an UMAC operation is performed at the AP and a LMAC operation is performed at the relay STA” (See [0216] The split between an upper MAC and a lower MAC. This would mean that AP node 2 may still manage channel access related procedures such as link adaptation and backoff counters. However, AP node 1 would still take care of security).
Regarding clam 15,
SEDIN discloses “A computer-implemented method for wireless communication by an access point (AP) in a wireless network” (See [0112] The method 100 is for multi-link communication in a wireless communication network, wherein the wireless communication network comprises a first node and a second node, performed by the apparatus 700 and/or the controller 710 of FIG. 7), “comprising: establishing a logical AP multi-link device (MLD) comprising the AP and one or more relay STAs” [0110] A MLD AP entity comprises multiple APs, one AP per link. To enhance understanding, we refer to APs that are not co-located as AP nodes. An AP node 1 is located in a different entity than an AP node 2. However, as will be described later herein, AP node 2 may be used to form the MLD AP1 entity, i.e., a node entity. [0111] For example, AP node X refers to a physical AP which is not necessarily co-located with an AP node Y. A MLD AP X refers to a logical MLD which may comprise non co-located physical AP nodes. [0189] Since AP node 1 and AP node 2 are configured to function as a single MLD AP1 entity, in this example, AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. Hence, AP node 2 can be considered a relay or repeater of the data for the second link), “wherein the logical AP MLD comprises an upper medium access control (UMAC) layer in the AP and a lower MAC (LMAC) layer in the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 6b, upper MAC at AP node 1, and lower MAC at AP node 2 which acts as a relay node. [0215] FIG. 6b illustrates a split between MLD AP1 and MLD AP2 assuming the lower MAC is used at AP2); “wherein an UMAC operation is performed at the AP and a LMAC operation is performed at the one or more relay STAs” (See [0216] The split between an upper MAC and a lower MAC. This would mean that AP node 2 may still manage channel access related procedures such as link adaptation and backoff counters. However, AP node 1 would still take care of security).
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.
Claims 2, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of Fang et al. (US 20140254471 A1), and further in view of Chu et al. (US 20220150958 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 16,
SEDIN discloses claim 2 of “The AP of claim 1”, claim 8 of “The relay STA of claim 7”, and claim 16 of “The computer-implemented method of claim 15”, “wherein a traffic handling function is provided by the UMAC of the AP” (See [0189] AP node 1 acts as a master of the communication session. This means that secret keys, data distribution, etc. are managed by AP node 1. See Fig. 6b, [0215] FIG. 6b illustrates a split between MLD AP1 and MLD AP2 assuming the lower MAC is used at AP2. [0216] The split between an upper MAC and a lower MAC. AP node 1 would still take care of security. Note: AP node 1 includes the upper MAC and acts as the master of the communication session and manages data distribution which includes traffic handling).
SEDIN does not explicitly disclose that an advertising function is provided by the relay STA.
However, Fang discloses “wherein an advertising function is provided by a relay STA” (See [0080] After initialization, and associated with the AP, the relay node 1 operates normally and broadcasts beacon frames periodically. Relay node 1 provides the relay link condition in the WAN information of the beacon frame. [0096] Relay node 1 periodically sends beacon frame including its relay link information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SEDIN with the teachings of Fang, to provide an advertising function at the relay STA, in order to enable STAs to obtain relay-link information and determine whether to associate through the relay STA (Fang [0073]).
SEDIN in view of Fang does not explicitly disclose that the advertising function is provided by the UMAC layer of the relay STA.
However, Chu discloses “wherein an advertising function is provided by a UMAC layer” (See [0041] In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1, the NSTR MLD 104 includes two non-AP STAs, STA1 106-1 and STA2 106-2. In some embodiments, a common part of the NSTR MLD 104 implements upper layer MAC functionalities, e.g., beacon creation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SEDIN and Fang with the teachings of Chu, by implementing the beacon advertising function of the relay STA at the upper MAC layer, in order to efficiently coordinate beacon/ advertisement processing at the UMAC while allowing the LMAC to perform link-specific communication operations (Chu [0041]).
Claims 3, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of ZHOU et al. (US 20240365134 A1), and further in view of VIGER et al. (US 20260197885 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 17,
SEDIN discloses claim 3 of “The AP of claim 1”, claim 9 of “The relay STA of claim 7”, and claim 17 of “The computer-implemented method of claim 15”.
SEDIN does not explicitly disclose the relay STA including a plurality of LMACs what are part of different MLDs.
However, ZHOU discloses “wherein the one or more relay STAs include a plurality of LMACs that are part of different MLDs” (See Figs 7-8, [0091] FIG. 8 illustrates transfer of two MLD LMAC sublayers to different neighbor APs according to another example. In the example of FIG. 8 the MLD LMAC sublayers 808, 810 are transferred to respective different neighbor APs 803, 805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the relay node of SEDIN with the teachings of ZHOU to include a plurality of MLD LMACs corresponding to respective MLD architectures, including different MLDs, thereby enabling the relay node to provide distributed lower MAC functionality while maintaining upper MAC functionality.
SEDIN in view of ZHOU does not explicitly disclose that an upper MAC layer controls the plurality of lower MAC layers.
However, VIGER discloses “plurality of LMACs controlled by the UMAC layer of the AP for relay operation” (See [0165] The MAC 802.11 layer 424, may comprise a single upper MAC layer 424a handling a plurality of lower MAC layer modules 424b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the UMAC of the AP in the modified SEDIN-ZHOU system to handle the plurality of LMACs, as taught by VIGER, to provide common upper MAC processing and coordination for the plurality of lower MACs.
Claims 4-5, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of KIM et al. (US 20260197676 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 18,
SEDIN discloses claim 4 of “The AP of claim 1”, claim 10 of “The relay STA of claim 7”, and claim 18 of “The computer-implemented method of claim 15”, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting/ receiving a message that includes information about a configuration of the one or more relay STAs.
However, KIM discloses “receive a message from the one or more relay STAs/ transmit a message to the AP that includes information about a configuration of the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 35, [0356] the relay station may transmit information on the capability related to the relay operation of the relay station when transmitting the reporting frame to the AP. The information on the capability related to the relay operation may be the above-described Relay Support element. In an embodiment of FIG. 35, the relay station (R_STA) transmits a Relay Support element to the AP through a reporting frame (Report)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SEDIN to receive relay station capability information as taught by KIM, in order to facilitate appropriate utilization of the relay station for the relay operation.
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 19,
SEDIN in view of KIM discloses claim 5 of “The AP of claim 4”, claim 11 of “The relay STA of claim 10”, and claim 19 of “The computer-implemented method of claim 15”, “wherein the message includes information about capabilities of the one or more relay STAs” (See Fig. 35, [0356] the relay station may transmit information on the capability related to the relay operation of the relay station when transmitting the reporting frame to the AP. The information on the capability related to the relay operation may be the above-described Relay Support element. In an embodiment of FIG. 35, the relay station (R_STA) transmits a Relay Support element to the AP through a reporting frame (Report)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of SEDIN to receive relay station capability information as taught by KIM, in order to facilitate appropriate utilization of the relay station for the relay operation.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of LU et al. (US 20260247443 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 20,
SEDIN discloses claim 6 of “The AP of claim 1”, and claim 20 of “The computer-implemented method of claim 15”, but does not explicitly disclose the AP transmitting an advertisement message that includes information on the one or more relay STAs.
However, LU discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to transmit an advertisement message that includes information on the one or more relay STAs” (See [0060] Characteristics of the second-type relay STA may include that: support for relay operation can be announced by the AP through management frames such as beacon frames; the relay STA can be defined by its capabilities when associating with the AP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of SEDIN by transmitting an advertisement message including information regarding a relay STAs, as taught by LU, in order to facilitate discovery of relay capability and enable stations to identify available relay functionality for establishing relay communications.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of LIM et al. (US 20250133593 A1).
Regarding claim 12,
SEDIN discloses “The relay STA of claim 7”, but does not explicitly disclose the relay STA transmitting an advertisement message that includes information on the relay STA.
However, LIM discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to transmit an advertisement message that includes information on the relay STA” (See [0233] In an embodiment, one or more of the above-mentioned capabilities of an AF relay node may be indicated/announced to other devices/STAs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of SEDIN by transmitting an advertisement message including information regarding a relay STAs, as taught by LIM, in order to facilitate discovery of relay capability and enable stations to identify available relay functionality for establishing relay communications.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEDIN et al. (US 20230254740 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20240333373 A1).
Regarding claim 13,
SEDIN discloses “The relay STA of claim 7, wherein the relay STA further comprises one or more physical layers (PHYs)” (See Fig. 6b, [0213-0215], disclosing the physical layer of AP node 2).
SEDIN does not explicitly disclose that the PHY layer of the relay STA is configured to communicate with the one or more STAs and the AP.
However, Ryu discloses “wherein the one or more PHYs are configured to communicate with one or more STAs and the one or more PHYs are configured to communicate with the AP” (See Fig. 2, [0048-0050] relay STA 106 comprises a PHY layer and communicates/ relays communication using the PHY layer between dSTA 102 and tSTA 104 which cab both act as a STA or an AP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PHY of SEDIN’s relay STA to communicate with both the AP and the one or more STAs, as taught by Ryu, in order to enable the relay STA to receive and forward communication between the AP and the one or more STAs.
Regarding claim 14,
SEDIN in view of Ryu discloses “The relay STA of claim 13, wherein the relay STA transmits and receives traffic using a first PHY in the one or more PHYs” (See Ryu, Fig. 2 illustrating relay STA (rSTA) 106 having a PHY layer through which communications are transmitted and received between tSTA 102 PHY and dSTA 104 PHY).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PHY of SEDIN’s relay STA to communicate with both the AP and the one or more STAs, as taught by Ryu, in order to enable the relay STA to receive and forward communication between the AP and the one or more STAs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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.
/SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights