Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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- 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patil et al. US 20250113264 A1 (hereinafter Patil).
Regarding claim 1, Patil teaches
A station (STA) in a wireless network (STAs 104/ A non-AP), comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: transmit, to a first AP (first AP device) affiliated with a seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD), a first frame to associate (association frame) with the seamless roaming domain, wherein the seamless roaming domain communicates with one or more APs including the first AP (first AP device) and a second AP (second AP device) that are affiliated with the seamless roaming domain;
(“The wireless communication network 100 may include numerous wireless communication devices including at least one wireless AP 102 and any number of STAs 104.”[0033] “Each of the STAs 104 also may be referred to as a mobile station (MS), a mobile device, a mobile handset, a wireless handset, an access terminal (AT), a user equipment (UE), a subscriber station (SS), or a subscriber unit, among other examples.” [0034] “The first device may include a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code” [0006] “A non-AP that supports seamless roaming may perform association with the SMD MLD which enables the non-AP to seamlessly transition from being served by one set of AP devices to another set of AP devices without performing reassociation.” [0028] “an association frame…may include the SMD element.” [0079] “A single mobility domain MLD (SMD MLD) may be a logical entity that operates one or more APs that are affiliated with one or more AP MLDs.” [0028] “the wireless device 602 may be a STA 104, and the STA 104 may seamlessly roam from the first AP device to the second AP device.” [0095])
and roam to the second AP (second AP device) affiliated with the seamless roaming domain, wherein the seamless roaming domain performs a context transfer from the first AP to the second AP.
(“the wireless device 602 or the wireless device 604, or both, may facilitate a transfer of context information for the STA from a first AP device of the one or more AP devices to a second AP device of the one or more AP devices in accordance with the roaming… the wireless device 602 may be a STA 104, and the STA 104 may seamlessly roam from the first AP device to the second AP device.”[0095])
Regarding claim 2 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above.
Claim 2 recites: wherein the context transfer transfers information related to at least one of: sequence number (SN)/packet number (PN) information, block acknowledgment agreement information, quality of service (QOS) setup information, target wake time (TWT) setup information, emergency preparedness communication service (EPCS) setup information, or traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping information.
The “at least one of” language requires anticipation of only a single listed type of information. Patil teaches wherein the context transfer transfers information related to at least one of: sequence number (SN)/packet number (PN) information, block acknowledgment agreement information to link mapping information
(“Some examples of context information may include encryption keys, user data context parameters, one or more PNs for the STA, one or more SNs for the STA, one or more BAs, or any combination thereof.” [0096] “To begin exchanging user data with the second AP, however, the STA may have to wait for the first AP to provide the second AP with various user data context parameters, such as an encryption key, a packet number (PN), a sequence number (SN), a block acknowledgement (BA), and a set of encryption keys for the STA” [0029])
Regarding claim 3 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Patil teaches
The STA of claim 1, wherein the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD) has an identifier.
(“the first set of parameters includes at least an identifier of the SMD MLD and one or more roaming capabilities of the SMD MLD” [0101])
Regarding claim 6 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above.
wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from one or more APs (serving AP device) affiliated with the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD), a second frame (management frame), advertising the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD advertisement).
(“In some implementations, a non-AP device, such as a STA 104 or a non-AP MLD 506, may identify if a candidate AP device is an MLD or affiliated with an MLD based on management frames from a serving AP device. For example, the non-AP device may receive a reduced neighbor report information element or an SMD element in a beacon frame, probe response frame, association response frame, or reassociation response frame.” [0085] “At 606, the wireless device 604 may transmit an indication of a first set of parameters associated with an SMD MLD (such as an SMD MLD 502). In some implementations, the wireless device 604 may transmit an SMD MLD advertisement which may include, for example, an SMD element.” [0091])
Regarding claim 7 limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed above.
Claim 7 recites: The STA of claim 6, wherein the second frame includes i) a media access control (MAC) identifier of the seamless roaming domain, ii) one or more MAC addresses of other APs that are a part of the seamless roaming domain, or iii) capabilities of other APs that are a part of the seamless roaming domain.
The “or” language requires anticipation of only one of the listed alternatives. Patil teaches The STA of claim 6, wherein the second frame (management frame) includes i) a media access control (MAC) identifier (MAC address) of the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD)
(“The first set of parameters may include at least an identifier of the SMD MLD and one or more roaming capabilities of the SMD MLD. In some implementations, the identifier of the SMD MLD is a MAC address associated with the SMD MLD… The wireless device 604 may transmit the indication of the first set of parameters via a management frame, a beacon signal, a probe request, a probe response, an associated request, a reassociation request, or a response frame, a multi-link reconfiguration message, a basic service set transition management message, or any combination thereof.” [0091])
Regarding claim 9, Patil teaches
A first access point (AP) in a wireless network, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: receive, from a station (STA), a first frame (association frame) to associate with a seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD) with which the first AP is affiliated, wherein the seamless roaming domain communicates with one or more APs including the first AP and a second AP (second AP device) that are affiliated with the seamless roaming domain;
(“The wireless device 604 may be the first AP (e.g., a serving AP, a source AP of the roaming) for the STA, and the wireless device 604 may facilitate the transfer of the context information for the wireless device 602 to a the second AP device (e.g., a target AP of the roaming).” [0095] “The first device may include a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code”[0006] “A non-AP that supports seamless roaming may perform association with the SMD MLD which enables the non-AP to seamlessly transition from being served by one set of AP devices to another set of AP devices without performing reassociation.” [0028] “In some implementations, in block 1010, the second device may receive an indication of one or more AP devices affiliated with the SMD MLD for which roaming of a STA is supported without reassociation.” [0153] “receiving a management frame, a beacon signal, a probe request, a probe response, an associated request, a reassociation request, or a response frame, a multi-link reconfiguration message, a basic service set transition management message, or any combination thereof, including the indication of the first set of parameters associated with the SMD MLD.” [0181] “an association frame…may include the SMD element.” [0079])
and determine that the STA has roamed to the second AP affiliated with the seamless roaming domain and perform a context transfer to the second AP.
(“At 614, the wireless device 602 or the wireless device 604, or both, may facilitate a transfer of context information for the STA from a first AP device of the one or more AP devices to a second AP device of the one or more AP devices in accordance with the roaming. In some examples, facilitating the transfer of context information for the STA may include transferring the STA from being served by the first AP device to the second AP device... the STA 104 may seamlessly roam from the first AP device to the second AP device.” [0095])
Regarding claim 10 The limitations of parent claim 9 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 10,
Claim 10 recites: wherein the context transfer transfers information related to at least one of: sequence number (SN)/packet number (PN) information, block acknowledgment agreement information, quality of service (QOS) setup information, target wake time (TWT) setup information, emergency preparedness communication service (EPCS) setup information, or traffic identifier (TID) to link mapping information.
The “at least one of” language requires anticipation of only a single listed type of information. Patil teaches wherein the context transfer transfers information related to at least one of: sequence number (SN)/packet number (PN) information, block acknowledgment agreement information to link mapping information
(“Some examples of context information may include encryption keys, user data context parameters, one or more PNs for the STA, one or more SNs for the STA, one or more BAs, or any combination thereof.” [0096] “To begin exchanging user data with the second AP, however, the STA may have to wait for the first AP to provide the second AP with various user data context parameters, such as an encryption key, a packet number (PN), a sequence number (SN), a block acknowledgement (BA), and a set of encryption keys for the STA” [0029])
Regarding claim 11 The limitations of parent claim 9 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 11, Patil teaches wherein the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD) has an identifier.
(“the first set of parameters includes at least an identifier of the SMD MLD and one or more roaming capabilities of the SMD MLD” [0101])
Regarding claim 14 limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above.
wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the STA (STA 104-c), a second frame (management frame), advertising the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD advertisement).
(“In an example, the AP 102-e or the AP MLD 504-b, or both, may transmit an SMD MLD advertisement 508 to the STA 104-c. The SMD MLD advertisement 508 may include, or be an example of, the SMD element.” [0081] “In some implementations, the SMD element may be included in frames that carry the basic multi-link information element. For example, a beacon frame, a probe response frame, an association frame, a reassociation frame, an association response frame, a reassociation response frame, a multi-link reconfiguration frame, a BSS transition management frame, a management frame, or any combination thereof, may include the SMD element.” [0079])
Regarding claim 15 The limitations of parent claim 14 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 15,
Claim 15 recites: wherein the second frame includes i) a media access control (MAC) identifier of the seamless roaming domain, ii) one or more MAC addresses of other APs that are a part of the seamless roaming domain, or iii) capabilities of other APs that are a part of the seamless roaming domain.
The “or” language requires anticipation of only one of the listed alternatives. Patil teaches The STA of claim 6, wherein the second frame (management frame) includes i) a media access control (MAC) identifier (MAC address) of the seamless roaming domain (SMD MLD)
(“The first set of parameters may include at least an identifier of the SMD MLD and one or more roaming capabilities of the SMD MLD. In some implementations, the identifier of the SMD MLD is a MAC address associated with the SMD MLD… The wireless device 604 may transmit the indication of the first set of parameters via a management frame, a beacon signal, a probe request, a probe response, an associated request, a reassociation request, or a response frame, a multi-link reconfiguration message, a basic service set transition management message, or any combination thereof.” [0091])
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 reflects a computer-implemented method for implementing the device in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects computer-implemented method for implementing device in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects computer-implemented method for implementing device in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4, 12 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Zhong et al US 20040081119 A1 (hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claim 4 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Zhong teaches
The STA of claim 1, wherein the seamless roaming domain performs a data transfer [forward packets] from the first AP (old AP) to the second AP (new AP).
(“In a preferred embodiment, a change is made to the firmware of the wireless interface card 12 so that packets held in the card's queue of packets 14 can be sent back to a higher protocol layer upon request. In this embodiment, a higher protocol layer in the old AP is able to fetch packets in the wireless interface card queue 15 and forward them to the new AP 14 during handoff.” [0015])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhong’s packet forwarding technique into Patil’s seamless roaming system so that packets remaining at the first/source AP during roaming are forwarded to the second/target AP, thereby reducing packet loss during handoff and minimizing unnecessary retransmission of data.
Regarding claim 12 The limitations of parent claim 9 are taught by the combination set forth above and are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 12,
Zhong teaches wherein the seamless roaming domain performs a data transfer [forward packets] from the first AP (old AP) to the second AP (new AP).
(“In a preferred embodiment, a change is made to the firmware of the wireless interface card 12 so that packets held in the card's queue of packets 14 can be sent back to a higher protocol layer upon request. In this embodiment, a higher protocol layer in the old AP is able to fetch packets in the wireless interface card queue 15 and forward them to the new AP 14 during handoff.” [0015])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhong’s packet forwarding technique into Patil’s seamless roaming system so that packets remaining at the first/source AP during roaming are forwarded to the second/target AP, thereby reducing packet loss during handoff and minimizing unnecessary retransmission of data.
Regarding claim 19, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects computer-implemented method for implementing device in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of
Huang et al US 20230125078 A1 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 5 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Huang teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit a second frame that includes a reconfiguration message that adds a link between the STA (non-AP MLD) and the second AP (AP of the AP-MLD) or deletes a link between the STA and the first AP.
(“At block 204, the device may encode a request frame including a multi-link reconfiguration element as defined above to request to remove or add the previously used communication link with the affiliated AP of the AP-MLD. At block 206, the device may cause the non-AP MLD to transmit the request to the AP-MLD, which may receive and process the request by determining whether the requested link is to be added or removed as described above.” [0116 - 0117] “a single ML reconfiguration request supports indicating both addition and deletion of links to the ML setup.” [0093])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huang’s multi-link reconfiguration technique into Patil’s seamless roaming system so that the STA can add a communication link with the second AP or delete a communication link with the first AP using a reconfiguration frame, thereby allowing efficient reconfiguration of active links without requiring a full reassociation procedure.
Regarding claim 13 limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Huang teaches
The AP of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a second frame that includes a reconfiguration message that adds a link between the STA and the second AP or deletes a link between the STA and the first AP.
(“At block 204, the device may encode a request frame including a multi-link reconfiguration element as defined above to request to remove or add the previously used communication link with the affiliated AP of the AP-MLD. At block 206, the device may cause the non-AP MLD to transmit the request to the AP-MLD, which may receive and process the request by determining whether the requested link is to be added or removed as described above.” [0116 - 0117] “a single ML reconfiguration request supports indicating both addition and deletion of links to the ML setup.” [0093])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huang’s multi-link reconfiguration technique into Patil’s seamless roaming system so that the AP can receive reconfiguration request from the STA to add a communication link with the second AP or delete a communication link with the first AP using a reconfiguration frame, thereby allowing efficient reconfiguration of active links without requiring a full reassociation procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects computer-implemented method for implementing device in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Klein et al US 20230300773 A1 (hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 8 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Patil teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to:second AP device),
( “A single mobility domain MLD (SMD MLD) may be a logical entity that operates one or more APs that are affiliated with one or more AP MLDs.” [0028] “the wireless device 602 may be a STA 104, and the STA 104 may seamlessly roam from the first AP device to the second AP device.” [0095] )
Patil does not expressly disclose transmit a second frame to disassociate. However Klein teaches
transmit a second frame to disassociate (disassociation frame)
(“The setup process may be done using the disassociation frame that can be initiated by either the AP MLD or the non-AP MLD. The disassociation frame shall be exchanged through a single link, e.g. a selected link between one affiliated non-AP STA and one affiliated AP operating on the same link.” [0101 - 0102] “this way, the non-AP MLD and the AP MLD may become unassociated for all the links.” [0104])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Klein’s non AP MLD initiated disassociation procedure into Patil’s seamless roaming system so that the STA can transmit a dissociation frame through the second AP to terminate its association with the SMD MLD, for the benefit of providing efficient association termination through an available AP link.
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 20230125078 A1 paragraph [0007] ) is pertinent to roaming between access points in a multi-link communication environment, including disassociation from an original access point following roaming.
Cariou et al (US 20230139206 A1 paragraphs [0051][0070]- [0071]) is pertinent to removing communication links during multilink device transitions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAVOUR O MADU whose telephone number is (571)272-9730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/F.O.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
