DETAILED ACTION
This office action in response to an application filing received November 4, 2024. The Application Data Sheet received on November 4, 2024 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 4, 2024 and June 25, 2025 has been considered.
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 1, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation:
considering, by the AP MLD, the desired preference ordering for requested links.
This limitation would be practical to perform in the mind with the aid of pencil
and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). It is practical to consider an ordering of requested links and can reasonably be done in the human mind.
Rest of the Claim 1 recites “receiving, by an Access Point (AP) Multilink Device (MLD), a desired preference ordering for requested links”, amounts to mere data gathering performed by AP MLD which is just a generic computer component. This additional claim element does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two. The AP MLD is a computer tool to implement the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f). The step of “receiving, … a desired preference ordering for requested links” is an extra solution activity of data gathering under MPEP §2106.05(g). As result, the invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of receiving the desired preference ordering for the requested links by AP MLD amounts to no more than mere data gathering and cannot provide an inventive concept. As result, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 and 18 are directed towards a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium rather than the method of claim 1, however the same rationale applies to claim 16 and 18 as provided in the rejection to claim 1. As result, claim 16 and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 3, wherein the indication is made in an ordered per-Station (STA) profiled support subfield”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 4, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is for links requested in a (Re)Association Request frame for multi-link setup”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 5, further comprises a non-AP MLD ordering Per-STA Profiles sub-elements in a (Re)Association Request frame in a desired preference order in which it wants those links to be considered for multi-link setup”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 6, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 7 recites “The method of claim 5, further comprises the AP MLD considering the preference ordering for requested links received in a (Re)Association Request frame when selecting accepted links for that multi-link setup”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 7, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is for links requested for add link operations in a Link Reconfiguration Request frame”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 8, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 8, further comprises a non-AP MLD ordering Per-STA Profiles sub-elements in a Link Reconfiguration Request frame in a desired preference order in which it wants those links to be considered for add link operations”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 9, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 11 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is in a decreasing preference order”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is in an increasing preference order”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 13 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links further comprises including a link preference field in the per-STA profile sub-element”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 14 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links further comprises including a link non preference field in the per-STA profile sub-element”. The claim provides additional limitations that describe receiving a preference ordering data and mental processes. As result, when additional features of claim 5, when considered alone and in combination, are still directed to an abstract idea which contains nothing significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JANG et al., US 20220240333 A1, (hereinafter JANG).
Regarding claim 1, 16 and 18, JANG teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an Access Point (AP) Multilink Device (MLD), a desired preference ordering for requested links (see Fig. 30, element S3020; ¶ [0493], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020). For example, the AP may receive the link selection information from the STA based on the channel information, and the link selection information may include information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links and information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links for data transmission; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.); and
considering, by the AP MLD, the desired preference ordering for requested links (see Fig. 29, element S2930, ¶ [0457] - [0458], e.g., The STA may receive link confirmation information from the AP (S2930). The link confirmation information may include information related to at least one link to be used by the STA and the AP for data transmission … the AP may check whether links included in the link selection information transmitted by the STA are supported and perform confirmation; see Fig. 30, element S3030- Transmit link confirmation information; ¶ [0520] - [0521], e.g., The AP may receive link confirmation information from the STA (S3030). The link confirmation information may include information related to at least one link to be used by the STA and the AP for data transmission … the AP may check whether links included in the link selection information transmitted by the STA are supported and perform confirmation. That is, the STA may check whether all links selected by the AP are supportable and may transmit a final confirmation signal.).
Regarding claim 2, 17 and 19 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1, 16 and 18.
JANG further teaches, further comprising: receiving, by the AP MLD, an indication that a non-AP MLD supports preference ordering for requested links (see Fig. 30, element S3020; ¶ [0493], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020). For example, the AP may receive the link selection information from the STA based on the channel information, and the link selection information may include information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links and information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links for data transmission; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.); and
indicating, by the AP MLD, that it supports preference ordering for requested links (see Fig. 30, element S3010; ¶ [0462], e.g., (implicitly implied by) the AP may transmit multi-link channel information to an STA (S3010). For example, the AP may transmit multi-link-related channel information to the STA, and the channel information may include link identifier information of a plurality of links included in the multi-link; ¶ [0484], e.g., Link status: Information related to whether each link is currently available/operable for data transmission (On/Off). The link status may include not only information related to capability that can be used for data transmission, but also information related to whether or not to use the link for data transmission even if the link has capability for data transmission. That is, the link status may include information related to whether a link supported by the STA can be used for data transmission and information related to whether the STA uses the link for data transmission independently of whether the link can be used for data transmission).
Regarding claim 3, and 20 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 2, and 18.
JANG further teaches, wherein the indication that the non-AP MLD supports preference ordering for requested links is received in a (re)association request frame in a Basic Multi-link element (see ¶ [0494], e.g., The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request. Alternatively, the link selection information may be included in a new management/control frame in the form of a field/element; see Fig. 30, element S3020; ¶ [0493], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020). For example, the AP may receive the link selection information from the STA based on the channel information, and the link selection information may include information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links and information related to whether the STA can use each of the plurality of links for data transmission; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.)).
Regarding claim 5 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANG further teaches, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is for links requested in a (Re)Association Request frame for multi-link setup (see ¶ [0494], e.g., The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request. Alternatively, the link selection information may be included in a new management/control frame in the form of a field/element.).
Regarding claim 7 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 5.
JANG further teaches, further comprises the AP MLD considering the preference ordering for requested links received in a (Re)Association Request frame when selecting accepted links for that multi-link setup (see ¶ [0494], e.g., The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA; see Fig. 30, element S3030- Transmit link confirmation information; ¶ [0520], e.g., The AP may receive link confirmation information from the STA (S3030). The link confirmation information may include information related to at least one link to be used by the STA and the AP for data transmission; ¶ [0521], e.g., For example, the AP may check whether links included in the link selection information transmitted by the STA are supported and perform confirmation. That is, the STA may check whether all links selected by the AP are supportable and may transmit a final confirmation signal.).).
Regarding claim 11 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANG further teaches, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is in a decreasing preference order (see ¶ [0452] - [0456], e.g., Ex 1) Include information representing that the corresponding link or band is preferred. Ex 2) It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included).
Regarding claim 12 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANG further teaches, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is in an increasing preference order (see ¶ [0452] - [0456], e.g., Ex 1) Include information representing that the corresponding link or band is preferred. Ex 2) It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG in view of Cariou et al., US 20230139206 A1, (hereinafter Cariou).
Regarding claim 4 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
JANG further teaches, wherein the indication is made with an ordered link selection (see ¶ [0494], e.g., The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request. Alternatively, the link selection information may be included in a new management/control frame in the form of a field/element.),
however, it does not explicitly teach the indication is made in a per-Station (STA) profiled support subfield.
Cariou teaches the indication is made in a per-Station (STA) profiled support subfield (see ¶ [0118] - [0119], e.g., In per-STA profile subelements of the multi-link element of (re)association request frame, the non-AP MLD may identify links to add with STA MAC addresses and link IDs for the AP MLD 1150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified indication of JANG to incorporate the teachings of Cariou to include the indication is made in a per-Station (STA) profiled support subfield. Doing so would facilitate in achieving successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as suggested by Cariou (see ¶ [0119], e.g., The AP MLD 1120 may respond to the (re)association request frame with a (re)association response frame indicating the successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD 1130 and the AP MLD 1150 and may include new link IDs generated for representation of the new links in per-STA profile subelements of a link info field of the multi-link element of the (re)association response frame.).
Regarding claim 6 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 5.
JANG further teaches, further comprises a non-AP MLD ordering in a (Re)Association Request frame in a desired preference order in which it wants those links to be considered for multi-link setup (see ¶ [0493] - [0494], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020) … The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.)),
however, it does not explicitly teach Per-STA Profiles sub-elements in a (Re)Association Request frame.
Cariou teaches Per-STA Profiles sub-elements in a (Re)Association Request frame (see ¶ [0118] - [0119], e.g., In per-STA profile subelements of the multi-link element of (re)association request frame, the non-AP MLD may identify links to add with STA MAC addresses and link IDs for the AP MLD 1150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified (Re)Association Request frame of JANG to incorporate the teachings of Cariou to include Per-STA Profiles sub-elements in a (Re)Association Request frame. Doing so would facilitate in achieving successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as suggested by Cariou (see ¶ [0119], e.g., The AP MLD 1120 may respond to the (re)association request frame with a (re)association response frame indicating the successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD 1130 and the AP MLD 1150 and may include new link IDs generated for representation of the new links in per-STA profile subelements of a link info field of the multi-link element of the (re)association response frame.).
Regarding claim 8 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANG further teaches, wherein the desired preference ordering for requested links is for links requested for in a Link Reconfiguration Request frame (see ¶ [0493] - [0494], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020) … The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.),
however, it does not explicitly teach add link operations.
Cariou teaches add link operations (see ¶ [0059], e.g., the non-AP MLD may send a Reassociation Request frame and receive a Reassociation Response frame may, for association of every new link, include the complete information of the corresponding STA for every new link in the per-STA profile of the ML element; see ¶ [0118] - [0119], e.g., In per-STA profile subelements of the multi-link element of (re)association request frame, the non-AP MLD may identify links to add with STA MAC addresses and link IDs for the AP MLD 1150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified (Re)Association Request frame of JANG to incorporate the teachings of Cariou to include add link operations in a (Re)Association Request frame. Doing so would facilitate in achieving successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as suggested by Cariou (see ¶ [0119], e.g., The AP MLD 1120 may respond to the (re)association request frame with a (re)association response frame indicating the successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD 1130 and the AP MLD 1150 and may include new link IDs generated for representation of the new links in per-STA profile subelements of a link info field of the multi-link element of the (re)association response frame.).
Regarding claim 9 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
JANG further teaches, further comprises a non-AP MLD ordering in a Link Reconfiguration Request frame in a desired preference order in which it wants those links to be considered (see ¶ [0493] - [0494], e.g., The AP may receive link selection information from the STA (S3020) … The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA.),
however, it does not explicitly teach Per-STA Profiles sub-elements for add link operations.
Cariou teaches Per-STA Profiles sub-elements for add link operations see ¶ [0059], e.g., the non-AP MLD may send a Reassociation Request frame and receive a Reassociation Response frame may, for association of every new link, include the complete information of the corresponding STA for every new link in the per-STA profile of the ML element; see ¶ [0118] - [0119], e.g., In per-STA profile subelements of the multi-link element of (re)association request frame, the non-AP MLD may identify links to add with STA MAC addresses and link IDs for the AP MLD 1150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified (Re)Association Request frame of JANG to incorporate the teachings of Cariou to include Per-STA Profiles sub-elements for add link operations in a (Re)Association Request frame. Doing so would facilitate in achieving successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as suggested by Cariou (see ¶ [0119], e.g., The AP MLD 1120 may respond to the (re)association request frame with a (re)association response frame indicating the successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD 1130 and the AP MLD 1150 and may include new link IDs generated for representation of the new links in per-STA profile subelements of a link info field of the multi-link element of the (re)association response frame.).
Regarding claim 10 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
JANG further teaches, further comprises the AP MLD considering the preference ordering for requested links received in a Link Reconfiguration Request frame when selecting accepted links (see ¶ [0494], e.g., The link selection information may be included in the EHT capability element or a new multi-link related element, and the element may be included in a (re)association request; see ¶ [0515] - [0519], e.g., Preferred links: indicates a link preferred by the STA… It can be indicated in the order of link preference: Link 1->Link 2. For example, information related to the most preferred link and information related to the next preferred links may be sorted based on preference and included… The information related to the link preferred by the STA may include information related to at least one link in the order of links having high preference of the STA; see Fig. 30, element S3030- Transmit link confirmation information; ¶ [0520], e.g., The AP may receive link confirmation information from the STA (S3030). The link confirmation information may include information related to at least one link to be used by the STA and the AP for data transmission; ¶ [0521], e.g., For example, the AP may check whether links included in the link selection information transmitted by the STA are supported and perform confirmation. That is, the STA may check whether all links selected by the AP are supportable and may transmit a final confirmation signal.).).
however, it does not explicitly teach add link operations.
Cariou teaches add link operations (see ¶ [0059], e.g., the non-AP MLD may send a Reassociation Request frame and receive a Reassociation Response frame may, for association of every new link, include the complete information of the corresponding STA for every new link in the per-STA profile of the ML element; see ¶ [0118] - [0119], e.g., In per-STA profile subelements of the multi-link element of (re)association request frame, the non-AP MLD may identify links to add with STA MAC addresses and link IDs for the AP MLD 1150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified (Re)Association Request frame of JANG to incorporate the teachings of Cariou to include add link operations in a (Re)Association Request frame. Doing so would facilitate in achieving successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD as suggested by Cariou (see ¶ [0119], e.g., The AP MLD 1120 may respond to the (re)association request frame with a (re)association response frame indicating the successful addition of the new links between the non-AP MLD 1130 and the AP MLD 1150 and may include new link IDs generated for representation of the new links in per-STA profile subelements of a link info field of the multi-link element of the (re)association response frame.).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG in view of PATIL et al., US 20240276581 A1, (hereinafter PATIL).
Regarding claim 15 JANG teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
JANG further teaches, further comprising advertising, by the AP MLD, allowable setup links (see ¶ [0462], e.g., Referring to FIG. 30, the AP may transmit multi-link channel information to an STA (S3010). For example, the AP may transmit multi-link-related channel information to the STA, and the channel information may include link identifier information of a plurality of links included in the multi-link. The multi-link channel information transmitted by the AP may include “2. BSS channel information for each link of AP”),
however, it does not explicitly teach a maximum allowable setup links.
PATIL teaches, a maximum allowable setup links (see ¶ [0025], e.g., For example, in some cases, an AP MLD may inform one or more non-AP MLDs of a first limit on maximum allowed links for association and/or a second limit for maximum allowed active links.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified multi-link-related information of JANG to incorporate the teachings of PATIL to include add link operations in a (Re)Association Request frame. Doing so would facilitate in achieving allowing a non-AP MLD to apply power saving procedures as suggested by PATIL (see ¶ [0025], e.g., Such information may allow a non-AP MLD to apply power saving procedures (e.g., per link power-save) to limit the number of links that it requests and/or the number of links that it is active on, allowing the non-AP MLD to meet the AP MLD's requirement while decreasing power consumption.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260082289 A1, issued to Zhao et al. teaches improve an information indication in the BTM, so that a non-AP MLD is clearer about an attitude of an AP MLD and behavior of the non-AP MLD.
US 12627969 B2, issued to Naik et al. teaches transmitting, via the link info field of the multi-link element of the frame, a set of multiple per-STA profile subelements associated with the set of multiple AP MLDs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights