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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/19/2024, 12/04/2025 and 03/25/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CHITRAKAR et al. (US 2023/0156840 A1, hereinafter Chitrakar), in view of, GUO et al. (US 2022/0346166 A1, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1, Chitrakar discloses, a multi-link reconfiguration (see e.g., “methods and apparatuses for multi-link setup and link maintenance”, [0001]) method, comprising:
sending, by a first Multi-Link Device (MLD), a first multi-link element to a second MLD, and/or receiving a second multi-link element sent by the second MLD, wherein the first multi-link element and/or the second multi-link element is used for determining (see e.g., “A first MLD can request a second MLD whose links are to be set up as part of a Multi-link Setup, independent of the link capabilities e.g. using a Setup Request field in a Multi-link Setup Request frame. The MLD may also include information about link quality (e.g. Uplink/Downlink (UL/DL) link margin, UL/DL Path Loss etc.) of the requested links. Further, the second MLD will only set up the links requested by the first MLD during the Multi-link Setup (e.g. assignment of association identifiers (AIDs), inclusion in the Association Record etc.). The links that are set up may be called a Multi-link set. The second MLD may also factor in the information about the link quality to decide whether or not to setup/enable a link, especially if there are TID restrictions on some links”, [0055]) at least one of:
a type of multi-link reconfiguration for indicating link addition or link deletion (see e.g., “A non-AP MLD may request to add a new link by reperforming the Multi-link Setup… Advantageously, this enables flexibility in adding new links with improved link quality.”, [0091] and/or “a non-AP MLD can request which links to be deleted as part of the multi-link Setup (i.e. explicitly by using a Deletion Requested field in the Multi-link Setup Request element, or implicitly by indicating low channel quality)”, [0113]);
Chitrakar fails to explicitly disclose link common information;
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses, link common information (see e.g., “when devices communicate with each other through a plurality of links, a multi-link device sends, to a peer multi-link device, information about whether any two of the plurality of links support simultaneous data sending and receiving. An amount of the information is large. After the peer multi-link device receives the information, when sending data to the multi-link device, the peer multi-link device sends the data to the multi-link device based on the received information through a link that can support simultaneous data sending and receiving as a link that is receiving data.”, [0122] and/or “A multi-link device generates link grouping information.”, [0142] and/or “The multi-link device sends link grouping information”, [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar with Guo, in order to improve communication efficiency between the wireless devices, by supporting multi-band communication, communication on different channels on a same frequency band, or communication on different channels on different frequency bands (please see Guo, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein in a case that the first part of links is the link requested to be added by the first MLD, the link common information is common information of the first part of links and the second part of links (see Guo e.g., “if there is a link that can support simultaneous data sending and receiving as other links in the same link group, a new link group may be added, and the link is placed into the new link group, to increase a quantity of link groups. In this way, when the multi-link device communicates with the peer multi-link device, an available link can be selected from more link groups”, [0015] and/or “related information for representing the characteristic of the link is carried in the link grouping information and sent to the peer multi-link device, without adding extra information to carry the related information of the link. This reduces overheads caused by exchange of newly added information”, [0019]); or
in a case that the first part of links is the link requested to be deleted by the first MLD, the link common information is common information of remaining links in the second part of links after the first part of links is deleted from the second part of links (see Guo e.g., “the multi-link device needs to send, to the peer multi-link device, the information about whether any two of the plurality of links support simultaneous data sending and receiving. Because an amount of the information is large, a process in which the peer multi-link device determines, based on the received information…”, [0007] and/or “the multi-link device may delete a link that has been placed into the link group from the link set, that is, delete the Li from the link set A”, [0170] and/or “the multi-link device adds the L2 to the G1 and deletes the L2 from the link set A. Otherwise, the multi-link device skips the L2, selects the L3 from the link set A, and determines whether simultaneous data sending and receiving is supported between the L3 and the L1. If simultaneous data sending and receiving is not supported between the L3 and the L1, the multi-link device places the L3 into the G1, and deletes the L3 from the link set A”, [0181]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar with Guo, in order to improve communication efficiency between the wireless devices, by supporting multi-band communication, communication on different channels on a same frequency band, or communication on different channels on different frequency bands (please see Guo, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first multi-link element comprises at least one of: a first multi-link control field for indicating the type of the multi-link reconfiguration (see Chitrakar e.g., “The multi-link setup frame 700 may comprise a frame control field, a duration field, three address fields…”, [0068] and/or “The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…The operations are signaled by the value indicated in the action type field of the multi-link element 800”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first multi-link element further comprises at least one of: a first element identification (ID) field for indicating an element ID of the first multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “a multi-link element 800 in accordance with the first embodiment. The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069]);
a first length field for indicating a length of the first multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “a multi-link element 800 in accordance with the first embodiment. The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069]); or
a first element ID extension field for indicating an extension element ID of the first multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “a multi-link element 800 in accordance with the first embodiment. The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein one or more subfields of the first multi-link control field are used for indicating a type and/or a subtype of the first multi-link element, and the type and/or the subtype of the first multi-link element is used for determining the type of the multi-link reconfiguration (see Chitrakar e.g., “a multi-link element 800 in accordance with the first embodiment. The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069] and/or “A non-AP MLD may request to add a new link by reperforming the Multi-link Setup. Link quality, traffic flow information may also be included. FIG. 15 depicts an illustration 1500 of communication flow between an AP MLD 1502 and a non-AP MLD 1504 including a multi-link re-setup request in accordance with the first embodiment”, [0091]);
wherein the first multi-link control field comprises a first type subfield for indicating the type and/or the subtype of the first multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “a multi-link element 800 in accordance with the first embodiment. The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069] and/or “A non-AP MLD may request to add a new link by reperforming the Multi-link Setup. Link quality, traffic flow information may also be included. FIG. 15 depicts an illustration 1500 of communication flow between an AP MLD 1502 and a non-AP MLD 1504 including a multi-link re-setup request in accordance with the first embodiment”, [0091]);
wherein the type of the first multi-link element is a reconfiguration multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “A non-AP MLD may request to add a new link by reperforming the Multi-link Setup. Link quality, traffic flow information may also be included. FIG. 15 depicts an illustration 1500 of communication flow between an AP MLD 1502 and a non-AP MLD 1504 including a multi-link re-setup request in accordance with the first embodiment”, [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first multi-link control field further comprises a first presence bitmap subfield, and the first presence bitmap subfield is used for indicating a subfield present in the first common information field of the first multi-link element (see Chitrakar e.g., “each of the one or more link information field may comprise a link ID subfield, a UL TID map and a DL TID map. Each TID Map may be a bitmap (i.e. 8 bits: 1 bit/TID) indicating the TIDs mapped to the link for that direction (UL or DL), or one or more 4-bits field may be used to indicate the TIDs. An example of a TID map encoding based on 4-bits field is illustrated in FIG. 14D, having values ranging from 0 to 15. A non-AP MLD, upon receipt of the TID-to-link mapping request frame from the AP MLD, may transmit back a TID-to-link mapping response frame indicating acceptance of the TID mapping”, [0083]);
wherein the first presence bitmap subfield comprises at least one of: a first part of bits for indicating whether a first MLD Media Access Control (MAC) address subfield is present in the first common information field (see Chitrakar e.g., “the non-AP MLD 504 may initiate multi-link authentication by transmitting an authentication request 510 to the AP MLD 502 on, for example, link 2. The authentication request may comprise information of the MLD MAC address of non-AP MLD 504. In response to receiving the authentication request 510, the AP MLD 502 may transmit an authentication response 512 to the non-AP MLD 504 on the same link 2. The authentication response may comprise information on the MLD MAC address of AP MLD 502”, [0062] and/or “the AP MLD 502 may also advertise its MLD MAC Address in Beacon/Probe Response frames (e.g. within the Multi-link capabilities element) for use during Multi-link Authentication (SAE, FILS), Multi-link Setup…”, [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first common information field comprises at least one of: a first common information length subfield for indicating a length of the first common information field (see Chitrakar e.g., “The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field…”, [0069]);
a first MLD MAC address subfield for indicating an MLD MAC address of the first MLD (see Chitrakar e.g., “the AP MLD 502 may also advertise its MLD MAC Address in Beacon/Probe Response frames (e.g. within the Multi-link capabilities element) for use during Multi-link Authentication (SAE, FILS), Multi-link Setup. If not, Probe Request frame need to carry an indication for a request of the AP MLD's MAC address”, [0074]);
a first EML capabilities subfield for indicating an EML capability of the first MLD (see Chitrakar e.g., “the setup request may comprise information indicating capability information and MAC addresses of only the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD for which links are to be set up”, [0107]).
Regarding claim 8, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first MLD capabilities subfield (see Chitrakar e.g., “the setup request may comprise information indicating capability information and MAC addresses of only the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD for which links are to be set up”, [0107]) comprises at least one of: a first part of MLD capabilities subfield for indicating a first part of MLD capabilities information affected by the multi-link reconfiguration (see Chitrakar e.g., “the setup request may comprise information indicating capability information and MAC addresses of only the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD for which links are to be set up”, [0107] and/or “a multi-link element 2200 configured for multi-link re-setup request and link deletion as discussed above. The action type field of the multi-link element 2200 is set to multi-link setup request”, [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be added by the first MLD, the first part of MLD capabilities information indicated by the first part of MLD capabilities subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to the first part of links and the second part of links (see Chitrakar e.g., “a non-AP MLD can request which links to be deleted as part of the multi-link Setup (i.e. explicitly by using a Deletion Requested field in the Multi-link Setup Request element, or implicitly by indicating low channel quality). The non-AP MLD may also include information about the link quality (i.e. UL/DL link margin, UL/DL Path Loss etc. obtained during Discovery) of the links requested for deletion’, [0113] and/or “the setup request may comprise information indicating capability information and MAC addresses of only the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD for which links are to be set up”, [0107] and/or “a multi-link element 2200 configured for multi-link re-setup request and link deletion as discussed above. The action type field of the multi-link element 2200 is set to multi-link setup request”, [0114]); or
in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be deleted by the first MLD, the first part of MLD capabilities information indicated by the first part of MLD capabilities subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to the remaining links in the second part of links after the first part of links is deleted from the second part of links (see Chitrakar e.g., “At this stage either one of the MLD (e.g. non-AP MLD) requests to set up link 1 (i.e. add link 1 to the Multi-link set) by transmitting a Multi-link Setup Request frame. The AP MLD accepts the request and link 1 is added to the Multi-link set. At the same time, AP MLD also maps TIDs 6 & 7 to both links 1 & 2, thereby causing both links 1 & 2 to transition to the Enabled state, at step 2408. Data and non-Data frames may be exchanged on Links 1, 2 & 3 at this stage”, [0121] and/or “a non-AP MLD can request which links to be deleted as part of the multi-link Setup (i.e. explicitly by using a Deletion Requested field in the Multi-link Setup Request element, or implicitly by indicating low channel quality). The non-AP MLD may also include information about the link quality (i.e. UL/DL link margin, UL/DL Path Loss etc. obtained during Discovery) of the links requested for deletion’, [0113] and/or “the setup request may comprise information indicating capability information and MAC addresses of only the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD for which links are to be set up”, [0107] and/or “a multi-link element 2200 configured for multi-link re-setup request and link deletion as discussed above. The action type field of the multi-link element 2200 is set to multi-link setup request”, [0114]).
Regarding claim 12, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the second part of MLD capabilities subfield (see Chitrakar e.g., “the links are set up only based on capabilities information (i.e. included in the multi-link set up request 206)”, [0054]) comprises at least one of:
a first Traffic ID (TID)-to-link mapping negotiation support subfield for indicating a capability for supporting a TID-to-link mapping negotiation (see Chitrakar e.g., “an AP MLD 202 and a non-AP MLD 204 for multi-link setup, link quality assessment, traffic identifier (TID)-to-link mapping and communication thereafter in accordance with a typical solution for addressing the above-mentioned issues. During multi-link setup, a multi-link setup request 206 is transmitted from the non-AP MLD 204 to the AP MLD 202 on link 2. The multi-link setup request comprises information on the link capabilities of links 1, 2 and 3. In response to the request, the AP MLD 202 sets up the requested links 1, 2 and 3, and then transmits a multi-link setup response 208 to the non-AP MLD 204 informing the setting up of the links.”, [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein the first link information field comprises STA information of an affiliated STA in the first MLD, the affiliated STA corresponding to each link of the first part of links and/or the link associated with the first part of links in the second part of links (see Chitrakar e.g., “multi-link setup/association may be initiated by the non-AP MLD 504 by transmitting a multi-link setup request 514 to the AP MLD 502 on, for example, link 2. The multi-link setup request 514 may comprise the link capabilities of links 1, 2 and 3 as well as request information that identify the affiliated STAs of the non-AP MLD 504 for which links are to be set up i.e. links 1, 2 and 3 in this case. The request information may also comprise information about quality of wireless channels for each of the links 1, 2 and 3. The request information may further comprise information about traffic characteristics that is expected for each of the links 1, 2 and 3, the traffic characteristics being one of Traffic”, [0063] and/or “three affiliated STAs (i.e. STA1, STA2 and STA3). Each STA has its own STA MAC address at the MAC layer and is connected via a link at the PHY layer for transmitting and receiving data (i.e. STA1 is connected via link 1, STA2 is connected via link2 and STA3 is connected via link 3)”, [0057]).
Regarding claim 19, Chitrakar and Guo combined disclose, wherein sending, by the first MLD, the first multi-link element to the second MLD comprises: sending, by the first MLD, the first multi-link element to the second MLD through any one of established links in the second part of links (see Chitrakar e.g., “The receiver 2704 may, in operation, receive a request frame from a first STA, wherein the first STA is included in a first plurality of STAs affiliated with a first MLD, and wherein the request frame comprises request information and is requesting for a multi-link setup that establishes one or more links between one or more STAs of the first plurality of STAs and corresponding one or more STAs of the second plurality of STAs based on the request information. The transmitter 2702 may transmit a response frame to the first STA to inform the result of the multi-link setup, wherein the response frame carries information of the one or more links that have been established between the one or more STAs of the first plurality of STAs and the corresponding one or more STAs of the second plurality of STAs”, [0135] and/or “a second STA included in a second plurality of STAs affiliated with a second Multi-link Device (MLD), the second STA comprising: a receiver, which in operation, receives a request frame from a first STA, wherein the first STA is included in a first plurality of STAs affiliated with a first MLD, and wherein the request frame comprises request information and is requesting for a multi-link setup that establishes one or more links between one or more STAs of the first plurality of STAs and corresponding one or more STAs of the second plurality of STAs based on the request information; and a transmitter, which in operation, transmits a response frame to the first STA to inform the result of the multi-link setup, wherein the response frame carries information of the one or more links that have been established between the one or more STAs of the first plurality of STAs and the corresponding one or more STAs of the second plurality of STAs”, [0148]).
Regarding claim 20, Chitrakar discloses, a communication device (see e.g., “STA 2700 that can be implemented for multilink setup and link maintenance”, [0128]), comprising:
a processor and a memory (see e.g., Fig. 27, controller 2706 and/or “The data processing, storage and other relevant control apparatus can be provided on an appropriate circuit board and/or in chipsets”, [0130]), wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to perform a multi-link reconfiguration method, comprising
sending a first multi-link element to a second MLD, and/or receiving a second multi-link element sent by the second MLD, wherein the first multi-link element and/or the second multi-link element is used for determining (see e.g., “A first MLD can request a second MLD whose links are to be set up as part of a Multi-link Setup, independent of the link capabilities e.g. using a Setup Request field in a Multi-link Setup Request frame. The MLD may also include information about link quality (e.g. Uplink/Downlink (UL/DL) link margin, UL/DL Path Loss etc.) of the requested links. Further, the second MLD will only set up the links requested by the first MLD during the Multi-link Setup (e.g. assignment of association identifiers (AIDs), inclusion in the Association Record etc.). The links that are set up may be called a Multi-link set. The second MLD may also factor in the information about the link quality to decide whether or not to setup/enable a link, especially if there are TID restrictions on some links”, [0055]) at least one of:
a type of multi-link reconfiguration for indicating link addition or link deletion (see e.g., “A non-AP MLD may request to add a new link by reperforming the Multi-link Setup… Advantageously, this enables flexibility in adding new links with improved link quality.”, [0091] and/or “a non-AP MLD can request which links to be deleted as part of the multi-link Setup (i.e. explicitly by using a Deletion Requested field in the Multi-link Setup Request element, or implicitly by indicating low channel quality)”, [0113]);
Chitrakar fails to explicitly disclose link common information;
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses, link common information (see e.g., “when devices communicate with each other through a plurality of links, a multi-link device sends, to a peer multi-link device, information about whether any two of the plurality of links support simultaneous data sending and receiving. An amount of the information is large. After the peer multi-link device receives the information, when sending data to the multi-link device, the peer multi-link device sends the data to the multi-link device based on the received information through a link that can support simultaneous data sending and receiving as a link that is receiving data.”, [0122] and/or “A multi-link device generates link grouping information.”, [0142] and/or “The multi-link device sends link grouping information”, [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar with Guo, in order to improve communication efficiency between the wireless devices, by supporting multi-band communication, communication on different channels on a same frequency band, or communication on different channels on different frequency bands (please see Guo, [0003]).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chitrakar, in view of Guo, and further in view of, SUGAYA et al. (US 2025/0301500 A1, hereinafter Sugaya).
Regarding claim 14, Chitrakar and Guo combined fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the STA information is carried in a per-STA profile subelement, and the per-STA profile subelement comprises at least one of: a first subelement ID subfield for indicating a subelement ID of the per-STA profile subelement; a first length subfield for indicating a length of the per-STA profile subelement.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugaya discloses wherein the STA information is carried in a per-STA profile subelement, and the per-STA profile subelement (see e.g., “Each Pre-STA Profile includes Subelement ID, Length, and Data”, [0211]) comprises at least one of: a first subelement ID subfield for indicating a subelement ID of the per-STA profile subelement (see e.g., “Each Pre-STA Profile includes Subelement ID, Length, and Data”, [0211]); a first length subfield for indicating a length of the per-STA profile subelement (see e.g., “Each Pre-STA Profile includes Subelement ID, Length, and Data”, [0211]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar and Guo with Sugaya, in order to perform control of receiving first information from a wireless communication device via one of a plurality of links set in advance with the wireless communication device and transmitting use reservation information indicating that a use opportunity for at least one of the plurality of links is to be secured in advance (please see Sugaya, [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Chitrakar, Guo and Sugaya combined disclose, wherein in a case that the first multi-link element is a first type of reconfiguration multi-link element, the first STA control subfield comprises at least one of: a first complete profile subfield for indicating whether the first STA profile subfield carries complete STA profile information (see Sugaya e.g., “Each Pre-STA Profile includes Subelement ID, Length, and Data”, [0211] and/or “The STA Control includes a Link ID that is a link identifier and Complete Profile that is link attribute information”, [0213]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar and Guo with Sugaya, in order to perform control of receiving first information from a wireless communication device via one of a plurality of links set in advance with the wireless communication device and transmitting use reservation information indicating that a use opportunity for at least one of the plurality of links is to be secured in advance (please see Sugaya, [0011]).
Regarding claim 16, Chitrakar, Guo and Sugaya combined disclose, wherein in the case that the first multi-link element is the first type of reconfiguration multi-link element, the first STA information subfield comprises at least one of: a first STA information length subfield (see Sugaya e.g., “Each Pre-STA Profile includes Subelement ID, Length, and Data”, [0211] and/or “The STA Control includes a Link ID that is a link identifier and Complete Profile that is link attribute information”, [0213]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chitrakar and Guo with Sugaya, in order to perform control of receiving first information from a wireless communication device via one of a plurality of links set in advance with the wireless communication device and transmitting use reservation information indicating that a use opportunity for at least one of the plurality of links is to be secured in advance (please see Sugaya, [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Chitrakar, Guo and Sugaya combined disclose, wherein in a case that the first multi-link element is a second type of reconfiguration multi-link element, the first STA control subfield comprises at least one of: a first link ID subfield for indicating a target link (see Chitrakar e.g., “Each link information field may comprise a Link ID subfield, link MAC address subfield, deletion requested subfield, UL link margin subfield…”, [0114] and/or “The STA Control includes a Link ID that is a link identifier and Complete Profile that is link attribute information”, [0213]);
a first link reconfiguration indication subfield for indicating a type of a reconfiguration operation performed on the target link (see Chitrakar e.g., “The multi-link element 800 may comprise an element ID field, a length field, an element ID extension field, an action type field, an action status field, a multi-link parameters control field and a multi-link parameters field. The multi-link element 800 may be carried in the multi-link action frame 600 or other frames such as association request/response frames and other management frames. Multiple multi-link elements may also be carried in the same frame if multiple multi-link operations are signaled in the same frame exchange e.g. TID Mapping and BA Setup, or Multi-link Setup and TID Mapping. The operations are signaled by the value indicated in the action type field of the multi-link element 800”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 18, Chitrakar, Guo and Sugaya combined disclose, wherein the first link reconfiguration indication subfield is set to be a first value for indicating that a link deletion operation is performed on the target link (see Chitrakar e.g., “The action type field of the multi-link element 2200 is set to multi-link setup request. One or more link information fields may be present such that there is one link information field per established link. Each link information field may comprise a Link ID subfield, link MAC address subfield, deletion requested subfield, UL link margin subfield, UL path loss subfield, DL link margin subfield and DL path loss subfield. The deletion requested subfield may be used to indicated whether deletion is requested for the concerned link (i.e. a value of 0=not requested, a value of 1=requested). For example, a value of 1 in the deletion requested subfield will cause the concerned link to be removed from the multi-link set. Link quality information that may be included in the UL link margin subfield, UL path loss subfield, DL link margin subfield and DL path loss subfield is optional.”, [0114]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 10, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein in a case that the first MLD capabilities subfield comprises the second part of MLD capabilities subfield, the second part of MLD capabilities information indicated by the second part of MLD capabilities subfield is kept consistent with a second part of MLD capabilities information adopted by the second part of links when or before performing the multi-link reconfiguration; or in a case that the first MLD capabilities subfield does not comprise the second part of MLD capabilities subfield, the second part of MLD capabilities information is defaulted to be consistent with a second part of MLD capabilities information adopted by the second part of links when or before performing the multi-link reconfiguration.
As to claim 11, the prior arts fail to teach, wherein the first part of MLD capabilities subfield comprises at least one of: a first maximum number of simultaneous links subfield for indicating a maximum number of simultaneous links; or a first frequency separation for Simultaneous Transmitting and Receiving (STR) subfield for indicating a STR frequency spacing between links; wherein in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be added by the first MLD, the maximum number of simultaneous links indicated by the first maximum number of simultaneous links subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to link conditions of the first part of links and the second part of links; or in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be deleted by the first MLD, the maximum number of simultaneous links indicated by the first maximum number of simultaneous links subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to link conditions of the remaining links in the second part of links after the first part of links is deleted from the second part of links; wherein in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be added by the first MLD, the STR frequency spacing indicated by the first frequency separation for STR subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to a STR frequency spacing between the first part of links, a STR frequency spacing between the second part of links, and a STR frequency spacing between the first part of links and the second part of links; or in the case that the first part of links is the link requested to be deleted by the first MLD, the STR frequency spacing indicated by the first frequency separation for STR subfield is updated based on the requested multi-link reconfiguration according to a STR frequency spacing between the remaining links in the second part of links after the first part of links is deleted from the second part of links.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9679. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at 5712727795. 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.
/FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights