DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 11 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (US 2017/0135007 A1, hereinafter “Srivastava”) in view of Subramanian et al (US 2019/0007894 A1, hereinafter “Subramanian”).
Regarding claim 1, Srivastava teaches a method (figs. 1-6, ¶ [0011], ¶ [0036]) comprising: managing wireless connectivity of multiple wireless communication devices to a wireless network (figs. 1-6, ¶ [0036], ¶ [0037]), the multiple wireless communication devices including a first wireless communication device; detecting a condition in which to terminate wireless access services provided to the first wireless communication device via the wireless network; and in response to the detected condition, communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device (figs. 1-7, ¶ [0027], dynamically commanding or messaging Wi-Fi enabled devices to disconnect from a corresponding access point in response to meeting predetermined conditions. A forced disconnect can be based on various criteria, such as low-power or lost packet thresholds triggering the forced disconnect, ¶ [0036], ¶ [0037]); and wherein transmitting a communication to the first wireless communication device, the communication including a command to disassociate with its connected access point and operate the first wireless communication device in scanning mode to scan for candidate access points (¶ [0036], In response to receiving this command, the device 105 ends a wireless connection with access point 110. After ending the wireless connection, the device 105 begins scanning for radio signals or accesses a recent report of scanned signals from candidate access points, and then requests a connection (typically) to an access point having a best signal, ¶ [0037], network controller sends explicit instructions for the Wi-Fi enabled device to disassociate with its connected access point. Such disassociation then initiates a process in the device 105 to look for another access point with which to connect.).
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein communicating with the wireless first communication device includes: transmitting a communication to the first wireless communication device, the communication including a command to operate the first wireless communication device in an energy depletion mode of depleting an energy source powering the first wireless communication device, execution of the energy depletion mode configures to disable the first wireless communication device.
However, it is well-known in the art that operating a wireless communication device in a scanning mode depletes an energy source powering the wireless communication device, and the execution of the scanning mode that depletes the energy source powering the wireless communication device can eventually disable the first wireless communication device, as evidenced by ¶ [0001] (While constantly or frequently scanning for access points may ensure that access points are identified whenever available, the scanning process requires significant power usage, resulting in rapid exhaustion of batteries in battery-powered devices) of Subramanian.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that first wireless communication device operating in a scan mode is operating in a mode of depleting an energy source powering the first wireless communication device and operating in a mode of depleting an energy source powering can eventually disable the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava.
Regarding claim 11, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services includes: transmitting reconfiguration information to the first wireless communication device, the reconfiguration information preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services (Srivastava: ¶ [0036], after access point 110 transmits the disassociate command, it is expected that device 105 will subsequently establish a connection with access point 120, ¶ [0037], To facilitate this change and ensure connection to a different access point, the disassociate message can be sent at a threshold that would not result in re-association with the first access point).
Regarding claim 32, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein execution of the command by the first wireless communication device prevents the first wireless communication device from subsequently communicating with the wireless network (Srivastava: ¶ [0036], after access point 110 transmits the disassociate command, it is expected that device 105 will subsequently establish a connection with access point 120, ¶ [0037], To facilitate this change and ensure connection to a different access point, the disassociate message can be sent at a threshold that would not result in re-association with the first access point).
7. Claims 2, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 114585054 B, hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 2, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein detecting the condition in which to terminate the wireless access services, as set forth above.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach receiving notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and mapping an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device.
He teaches wherein detecting the condition in which to terminate wireless access services includes: receiving notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and mapping an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device (Page 15, “the WIFI hardware layer obtains the device address information carried by the WIFI connection request; matching the device address information with the address information in the blacklist device information to obtain a third result; according to the third result, the WIFI hardware layer determines whether the second device indicated by the WIFI connection request is the blacklist device rejected by the first device. Page 2, the WIFI hardware layer determines
whether the first device satisfies the connection rejecting condition for rejecting the WIFI connection request; if the first device satisfies the connection rejection condition, the WIFI hardware layer sends a connection rejection response to the second device. Page 3. Page 21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and map an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to improve industrial applicability and security by rejecting a connection request by a device on the blacklist (Pages 3 and 7 of He).
Regarding claim 3, Srivastava in view of Subramanian and He teaches the method as in claim 2, wherein execution of the command by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from attempting to wirelessly communicate with the wireless network again (Srivastava: ¶ [0036], after access point 110 transmits the disassociate command, it is expected that device 105 will subsequently establish a connection with access point 120, ¶ [0037], To facilitate this change and ensure connection to a different access point, the disassociate message can be sent at a threshold that would not result in re-association with the first access point).
Regarding claim 10, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein communicating with the wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services, as set forth above.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach in response to receiving a request to use the wireless access services, communicating a denial of service notification to the first wireless communication device, the denial of service notification denying use of the wireless access services to the first wireless communication device.
He teaches wherein communicating with the wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services includes: in response to receiving a request to use the wireless access services, communicating a denial of service notification to the first wireless communication device, the denial of service notification denying use of the wireless access services to the first wireless communication device (Page 10, the WIFI hardware layer of the first device can directly send a connection rejection response to the second device indicated by the WIFI connection request. Specifically, the denial-of-connection device may be user-defined, for example, a blacklist device list set by the user).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to communicating a denial of service notification to the first wireless communication device, the denial of service notification denying use of the wireless access services to the first wireless communication device in response to a request to use the wireless access service in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to improve industrial applicability and security by denying a connection request by a device on the blacklist (Pages 3 and 7of He).
8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0167982 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 4, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach prior to transmitting the communication, communicating a join accept message to the first wireless communication device, the join accept message granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network.
Lee teaches communicating a join accept message to a first wireless communication device, the join accept message granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network (¶ [0120]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to, prior to transmitting to the communication, communicate a join accept message, granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network, to the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to utilize conventional (join request/accept) messages for granting a wireless connection.
9. Claims 7, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagahara (US 2022/0006695 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, where operating the wireless communication device in a scan mode depletes the energy source, as set forth above.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the command indicates to operate the first wireless communication device in a transmitter mode of transmitting wireless signals at a specified time to deplete the energy source and disable the first wireless communication device.
However, it is well known that a wireless communication device transmits signals at a specified time in the (active) scan mode, as evidenced by ¶ [0037] (During an active scan operation, a communicable AP will be detected by broadcasting a probe request frame periodically or at a timing instructed by the user, and receiving a probe response frame returned as a response. If a probe response frame is not received, it will be determined that a communicable AP could not be detected) of Nagahara (note: the intended use limitation (i.e., “to deplete the energy source and disable the first wireless communication device”) has not been given patentable weight).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to instruct the first wireless communication device to operate in an active scan mode that transmit signals at a specified time in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian. The motivation for using an active scan mode is a matter of design choice (¶ [0037] of Nagahara).
Regarding claim 33, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein execution of the mode of depleting the energy source by the first wireless communication device causes the first wireless communication device to repeatedly transmit wireless signals from the first wireless communication device until occurrence of a depletion of the energy stored in the energy source powering the first wireless communication device.
However, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches operating the wireless communication device in a scan mode depletes the energy source, and can eventually exhaust the energy stored in the battery powering the first wireless communication device, as set forth above.
Further, it is well known that a wireless communication device repeatedly transmits signal at a specified time in the (active) scan mode, as evidenced by ¶ [0037] (During an active scan operation, a communicable AP will be detected by broadcasting a probe request frame periodically or at a timing instructed by the user, and receiving a probe response frame returned as a response. If a probe response frame is not received, it will be determined that a communicable AP could not be detected) of Nagahara.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to operate the wireless communication device in an active scan mode that causes first wireless communication to repeatedly transmit wireless signals from the first wireless communication device until an available AP is identified or occurrence of a depletion of the energy stored in the energy source powering the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian. The motivation for utilizing an active scan mode is a matter of design choice (¶ [0037] of Nagahara).
Regarding claim 34, Srivastava in view of Subramanian and Nagahara teaches the method as in claim 33.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein subsequent to the depletion of energy stored in the energy source, the first wireless communication device is unable to transmit any further wireless signals in the wireless network.
Subramanian teaches the scanning process requires significant power usage, resulting in rapid exhaustion of batteries in battery-powered devices (¶ [0001]. Where it is implicit that after the exhaustion of batteries, the first wireless communication device is unable to transmit any further wireless signals in the wireless network).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that subsequent to the depletion of energy stored in the energy source (i.e., exhaustion of battery), the first wireless communication device is unable to transmit any further wireless signals in the wireless network in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian and Nagahara.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Xun et al. (US 2010/0293334 A1, hereinafter “Xun”).
Regarding claim 12, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 11, wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services, as set forth above.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach notifying the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive the reconfiguration information; and broadcasting the reconfiguration information to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time.
Xun teaches notifying the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive the reconfiguration information (¶ [0027], Broadcast messages may be sent periodically according to a set schedule, ¶ [0096]); and broadcasting the reconfiguration information to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time (¶ [0027], ¶ [0096], ¶ [0097]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to notify the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive the reconfiguration information and to broadcast the reconfiguration information to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to further enhance system efficiency and reliability.
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tikhomirov et al. (US 2022/0294854 A1, hereinafter “Tikhomirov”).
Regarding claim 13, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device includes: communicating a command to the first wireless communication device, execution of the command by the first wireless communication device causing the first wireless communication device to disconnect itself (Srivastava: ¶ [0027], ¶ [0036], Access point 110 transmits a disassociate command to the device 105. In response to receiving this command, the device 105 ends a wireless connection with access point 110).
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein execution of the command by the first wireless communication device causing the first wireless communication device to deactivate itself.
Tikhomirov teaches execution of the command by the first wireless communication device causing the first wireless communication device to deactivate itself (¶ [0198], [0286] disabling individual (insecure) IoT devices, ¶ [0303]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to cause the first wireless communication device to deactivate in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to improve system security.
12. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCrary et al. (US 20240046770 A1, hereinafter “McCrary”).
Regarding claim 14, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services includes: notifying the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive a software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device; and transmitting the software patch to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time, execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services.
McCrary teaches receive scheduled software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device; execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services (¶ [0014], automatic software updates, which reboot phones typically scheduled between 1 AM and 3 AM. ¶ [0163], If the protected phone 104 begins an update process, the phone is disabled or rebooted for update installation without full functionality until the update installed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to notify the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive a software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device and to transmit the software patch to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time, execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to improve industrial applicability by utilizing conventional software update/installation techniques in the art.
13. Claims 15 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of McCrary.
Regarding claim 15, Srivastava teaches a system comprising: communication management hardware operative to: manage wireless connectivity of multiple wireless communication devices to a wireless network, the multiple wireless communication devices including a first wireless communication device; detect a condition in which to terminate wireless access services provided to the first wireless communication device via the wireless network; in response to the detected condition, communicate a message to first wireless communication device to terminate use of the wireless network by the first wireless communication device (figs. 1-7, ¶ [0027], dynamically commanding or messaging Wi-Fi enabled devices to disconnect from a corresponding access point in response to meeting predetermined conditions. A forced disconnect can be based on various criteria, such as low-power or lost packet thresholds triggering the forced disconnect, ¶ [0036], ¶ [0037]).
Srivastava does not explicitly teach the message notifying the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive a software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device: and transmit the software patch to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time, execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services.
McCrary teaches receive scheduled software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device; execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services (¶ [0014], automatic software updates, which reboot phones typically scheduled between 1 AM and 3 AM. ¶ [0163], If the protected phone 104 begins an update process, the phone is disabled or rebooted for update installation without full functionality until the update installed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to notify the first wireless communication device of a scheduled time in which to receive a software patch for execution by the first wireless communication device and to transmit the software patch to the first wireless communication device at the scheduled time, execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network using the wireless access services in the system of Srivastava to improve industrial applicability by utilizing conventional software update/installation techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 36, Srivastava in view of McCrary teaches the system as in claim 15.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device renders the first wireless communication device non-operational.
McCrary teaches wherein the execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device renders the first wireless communication device non-operational (¶ [0163], If the protected phone 104 begins an update process, the phone is disabled).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that the software patch by the first wireless communication device renders the first wireless communication device non-operational in the system of Srivastava in view of McCrary to avoid software update interruptions.
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of McCrary as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Subramanian.
Regarding claims 20, Srivastava in view of McCrary teaches the system as in claim 15, wherein transmitting a communication to the first wireless communication device, the communication including a command to disassociate with its connected access point and operate the first wireless communication device in scanning mode to scan for candidate access points (Srivastava: ¶ [0036], In response to receiving this command, the device 105 ends a wireless connection with access point 110. After ending the wireless connection, the device 105 begins scanning for radio signals or accesses a recent report of scanned signals from candidate access points, and then requests a connection (typically) to an access point having a best signal, ¶ [0037], network controller sends explicit instructions for the Wi-Fi enabled device to disassociate with its connected access point. Such disassociation then initiates a process in the device 105 to look for another access point with which to connect.).
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the communication management hardware is further operative to: transmit a communication to the first wireless communication device, the communication including a command to operate the first wireless communication device in a mode of depleting an energy source powering the first wireless communication device.
However, it is well-known in the art that operating a wireless communication device in a scanning mode depletes an energy source powering the wireless communication device, as evidenced by ¶ [0001] (While constantly or frequently scanning for access points may ensure that access points are identified whenever available, the scanning process requires significant power usage, resulting in rapid exhaustion of batteries in battery-powered devices) of Subramanian.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that first wireless communication device operating in a scan mode is operating in a mode of depleting an energy source powering the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of McCrary.
15. Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of McCrary and Subramanian as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Nagahara.
Regarding claim 21, Srivastava in view of McCrary and Subramanian teaches the system as in claim 20.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the command indicates to operate the first wireless communication device in a transmitter mode of transmitting wireless signals at a specified time to deplete the energy source.
However, it is well known that a wireless communication device transmits signal at a specified time in the (active) scan mode, as evidenced by ¶ [0037] (During an active scan operation, a communicable AP will be detected by broadcasting a probe request frame periodically or at a timing instructed by the user, and receiving a probe response frame returned as a response. If a probe response frame is not received, it will be determined that a communicable AP could not be detected) of Nagahara (note: the intended use limitation (i.e., “to deplete the energy source”) has not been given patentable weight).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to instruct the first wireless communication device to operate in an active scan mode that transmit signals at a specified time in the system of Srivastava in view of McCrary and Subramanian. The motivation for using an active scan mode is a matter of design choice (¶ [0037] of Nagahara).
16. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of McCrary as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of He.
Regarding claim16, Srivastava in view of McCrary teaches the system as in claim 15.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the communication management hardware is further operative to: receive notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and map an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate the wireless access services.
He teaches wherein detecting the condition in which to terminate wireless access services includes: receiving notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and mapping an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device (Page 15, “the WIFI hardware layer obtains the device address information carried by the WIFI connection request; matching the device address information with the address information in the blacklist device information to obtain a third result; according to the third result, the WIFI hardware layer determines whether the second device indicated by the WIFI connection request is the blacklist device rejected by the first device. Page 2, the WIFI hardware layer determines whether the first device satisfies the connection rejecting condition for rejecting the WIFI connection request; if the first device satisfies the connection rejection condition, the WIFI hardware layer sends a connection rejection response to the second device. Page 3. Page 21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive notification of a request by the first wireless communication device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless network; and map an identity of the first wireless communication device to termination information specifying to terminate use of the wireless access services by the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of McCrary to improve industrial applicability and security by rejecting a connection request by a device on the blacklist (Pages 3 and 7 of He).
Regarding claim 17, Srivastava in view of McCrary and He teaches the system as in claim 16, wherein the communication management hardware is further operative to: communicate a command to the first wireless communication device, execution of the command by the first wireless communication device preventing the first wireless communication device from attempting to wirelessly communicate with the wireless network again (Srivastava: ¶ [0036], after access point 110 transmits the disassociate command, it is expected that device 105 will subsequently establish a connection with access point 120, ¶ [0037], To facilitate this change and ensure connection to a different access point, the disassociate message can be sent at a threshold that would not result in re-association with the first access point).
17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of McCrary as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Srivastava in view of McCrary teaches the system as in claim 15, wherein communicating with the first wireless communication device to terminate the wireless access services.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the communication management hardware is further operative to: communicate a join accept message to the first wireless communication device, the join accept message granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network.
Lee teaches communicating a join accept message to a first wireless communication device, the join accept message granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network (¶ [0120]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to, prior to transmitting to the communication, communicate a join accept message, granting a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network, to the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava in view of McCrary to utilize conventional (join request/accept) messages for granting a wireless connection.
18. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Luo et al. (US 2007/0223398 A1, hereinafter “Luo”).
Regarding claim 30, Srivastava teaches a method comprising: managing wireless connectivity of multiple wireless communication devices to a wireless network, the multiple wireless communication devices including a first wireless communication device; detecting a condition in which to terminate wireless access services provided to the first wireless communication device via the wireless network (figs. 1-7, ¶ [0027], dynamically commanding or messaging Wi-Fi enabled devices to disconnect from a corresponding access point in response to meeting predetermined conditions. A forced disconnect can be based on various criteria, such as low-power or lost packet thresholds triggering the forced disconnect, ¶ [0036], ¶ [0037]); and in response to the detected condition: i) communicating a first message to the first wireless communication device over a wireless communication link, the first message operative to trigger the first communication device to scan for/associate with another access point ((figs. 1-7, ¶ [0027], dynamically commanding or messaging Wi-Fi enabled devices to disconnect from a corresponding access point in response to meeting predetermined conditions. ¶ [0036], ¶ [0037], network controller sends explicit instructions for the Wi-Fi enabled device to disassociate with its connected access point. Such disassociation then initiates a process in the device 105 to look for another access point with which to connect).
Srivastava does not explicitly teach the first message operative to trigger the first wireless communication device to request joining the wireless network, ii) in response to communicating the first message, receiving a second message from the first wireless communication device over the wireless communication link, the second message requesting joining of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network, the first wireless communication device transmitting the second message in response to receiving the first message, and ili) in response to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message over the wireless communication link to the first wireless communication device, the third message rejecting the joining of the first wireless communication device with the wireless network, the rejection of the joining preventing use of the wireless network by the first wireless communication device.
Luo teaches i) communicating a first message to the first wireless communication device over a wireless communication link, the first message operative to trigger the first wireless communication device to request joining the wireless network (fig. 2, ¶ [0045], the device 21 sends an advertisement message of the device group to the device 22 and the device 23; after receiving the advertisement message, the device 22 and the device 23 want to join in the master-slave device group); ii) in response to communicating the first message, receiving a second message from the first wireless communication device over the wireless communication link, the second message requesting joining of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network, the first wireless communication device transmitting the second message in response to receiving the first message (fig. 2, ¶ [0045], then the device 22 and the device 23 respectively send requests to join in the device group), and ili) in response to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message over the wireless communication link to the first wireless communication device, the third message rejecting the joining of the first wireless communication device with the wireless network, the rejection of the joining preventing use of the wireless network by the first wireless communication device (fig. 2, ¶ [0045], the device 21 determines whether the device 22 and the device 23 are allowed to join in the device group according to preset conditions, and sends the results to the device 22 and the device 23 through responses to join in the device group. If it is "deny to join-in", then the response message may further carry deny reasons. Wherein, identifications of the devices allowed to join-in can be formed into a list which is placed in the master device.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to i) communicate a first message to trigger the first wireless communication device to request joining the wireless network, ii) receive a second message, requesting joining of the first wireless communication device, from the first wireless communication device over the wireless communication link in response to receiving the first message, and ili) in response to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message, reject the joining of the first wireless communication device, over the wireless communication link to the first wireless communication device, where the rejection of the joining preventing use of the wireless network by the first wireless communication device in the system of Srivastava to utilize conventional (join request/accept) messages for granting a wireless connection.
19. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baboescu et al. (US 2017/0353867 A1, hereinafter “Baboescu”) and Nagahara.
Regarding claim 31, Srivastava in view of Subramanian teaches the method as in claim 1.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the command indicates to repeatedly transmit wireless signals in a channel that does not interfere with other wireless communication devices in the network.
Baboescu teaches wherein the command indicates to transmit wireless signals in a channel that does not interfere with other wireless communication devices in the network (¶ [0031], The WLAN AP 230 may steer (e.g., attempt to steer) the user device 210 to another BSS (e.g., channel or band) with less coexistence interference. The user device 210 may scan for alternative WLAN BSS that provide the same or similar network service but operate on another band/channel with less coexistence interference).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to, indicate, in the command, to transmit wireless signals in a channel that does not interfere with other wireless communication devices in the network in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian to reduce/avoid interference.
Srivastava does not explicitly teach wherein the command indicates to repeatedly transmit wireless signals.
However, it is well known in the art that a wireless communication device repeatedly transmits signal in a scan (active scan) mode, as evidenced by ¶ [0037] of Nagahara.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to instruct the first wireless communication device to operate in an active scan mode that repeatedly transmits wireless signals in the system of Srivastava in view of Subramanian and Baboescu. The motivation for using an active scan mode is a matter of design choice (¶ [0037] of Nagahara).
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claim 5 is allowed.
21. Claims 8, 9,19, 22, 23 and 35 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.
22. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “communicating a join accept message to the first wireless communication device, the join accept message indicating grant of a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network: and wherein the join accept message includes a command notifying the first wireless communication device that the wireless access services have been revoked, execution of the command by the first wireless communication device preventing subsequent connectivity of the first wireless communication device with the wireless network.”
Regarding claims 8, 9, 22 and 23, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the command notifies the first wireless communication device to deplete the energy source powering the first wireless communication device via transmission of wireless signals from the first wireless communication device” in combination with the limitations specified in the base claims.
Regarding claim 19, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “communicating a join accept message to the first wireless communication device, the join accept message indicating grant of a wireless connection of the first wireless communication device to the wireless network: and wherein the join accept message includes a command notifying the first wireless communication device that the wireless access services have been revoked, execution of the command by the first wireless communication device preventing subsequent connectivity of the first wireless communication device with the wireless network” in combination with the limitations specified in the base claims.
Regarding claim 35, prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein subsequent to execution of the software patch by the first wireless communication device prevents the first wireless communication device from communicating with the wireless network” in combination with the limitations specified in base claim.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments filed on February 6, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights