Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 for claims 1-16 and 18-21 filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of applicants remarks:
Applicant respectfully submits that, as indicated in bold wording in the reproduction of the rejection, the present claim language does not recite that "the probe request include a version of the short beacon." Instead, claim 1 recites the probe request includes the element that indicates a version of the short beacon. Applicant respectfully submits that this is consistent with Applicant's prior arguments and even with the quoted paragraph in the rejection reproduced above - "[0062], [0068]-[0072], [0077], [0084]-[0085], all provide disclosure for a change count or change indicator of a short beacon sent by an AP, but does not describe a probe request including a version of the short beacon." Applicant respectfully submits that this portion of the specification teaches the probe request includes the element that indicates a version of the short beacon as recited in claim1. That is, "a change count or change indicator of a short beacon" teaches an element that indicates a version of the short beacon.
Examiner agrees with the underlined remarks above. However, the issue is that while the instant disclosure provides support for “an element that indicates a version of the short beacon”, there is no support for “a probe request” that “includes the element that indicates a version of the short beacon.” As indicated previously, [0062], [0068]-[[0072], [0076], [0084]-[0085], all provide disclosure for a change count or change indicator of a short beacon sent by an AP. However, none of the quoted paragraphs mention the probe request including the element that indicates a version of the short beacon.
Applicant further argues on pages 9-10 of applicant’s remarks:
Applicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0084] recites that "the AP may indicate change information by adding a "change sequence" to the short beacon to force STAs to listen for a full beacon or through the probe request." Applicant respectfully submits that the indication of the version of the short beacon is further taught in the specification. Specifically in the disclosure with respect to at least Figure 12. For example, paragraph [0126] sets forth that:
Such information may include one or more of an indication of transmission or presence of a short beacon 1202, a short beacon transmission time information 1203 (e.g., in the form of absolute time, time offset from the primary beacon etc), periodicity of the short beacon (how frequently it is transmitted) 1204, an indication of transmission or presence of STBC mode and non-STBC modes of the short beacon 1205, an indication of transmission or presence of short beacon in bandwidth mode 1 MHz 1206, and an indication of transmission or presence of a short beacon in bandwidth mode 2 MHz 1207. While bandwidth modes for 1 MHz and 2 MHz are shown in this example, other bandwidth mode values may be alternatively implemented. [Emphasis added.]
Further, for completeness, as described in paragraph [0127] "[t]he short beacon related information may be included in any part of the primary beacon frame."
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites elements described in the specification for at least the reasons presented above. Claims 2-16, 18-21 similarly overcome the present rejection for at least the reason presented.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically focusing on the quoted line in [0084] as shown above, Examiner understands the line to be read as such:
the AP may indicate change information by:
adding a “change sequence” to the short beacon to force STAs to listen for a full beacon OR
through a probe request
Specifically, a first option for the AP indicating change information is by “adding a change sequence to the short beacon”. As best understood by Examiner, the change sequence is being added to the short beacon. There is no indication that the change sequence is being added to “the probe request”. Examiner notes that “to force STAs to listen for a full beacon” is intended use of “change sequence”.
Specifically, a second option for the AP indicating change information is “through a probe request”. As best understood by Examiner, the AP indicating change information through a probe request does not indicate the probe request including an element that indicates a version of the short beacon.
As best understood by the examiner based on the quoted sections above: the element that indicates a version of the short beacon and the change sequence are all in reference to being added to the short beacon. There is no disclosure that indicates “a element that indicates a version of the short beacon” OR “a change sequence” being added or included within a probe request. Examiner further notes that [0084] is directed to actions performed by the access point. The claimed “probe request” is a message that originates from the STA and received at the AP in response to the STA receiving the short beacon. As such, the language as described in [0084] cannot possibly imply that the STA generates a probe request to include the same element information received in a short beacon.
The disclosure of [0126] as recited above, is related directly to information fields within a short beacon, and do not further describe any feature of a probe request including such information fields.
Examiner further notes the disclosure of [0127] as provided in the arguments indicate that short beacon related information may be included in any part of the primary beacon frame. Examiner notes that “primary beacon frame” is not a probe request.
As such, examiner maintains that the amendments do not overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection.
Regarding the 103 rejection, Applicant argues on pages 12-13:
The present Office Action then relies on the teaching of Abraham to provide such a teaching pointing to the teaching associated with change sequence field 440. Applicant respectfully submits that the change sequence field 440 fails to be incremented when the contents of the short beacon have changed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the previous office action, Liu teaches a short beacon, the short beacon including a change sequence field. As disclosed in [0195]-[0197] of Liu, a station may check the change sequence field 720 of shortened beacon frame 700 (which indicates whether BSS information has changed and thus whether the station should process other fields of the beacon frame 700 to determine what BSS information has change. As such, Liu teaches a short beacon including a change sequence field indicating whether contents of the short beacon has changed. Liu does not show the element having been incremented when the contents of the short beacon has changed.
Examiner introduces Abraham to show the concept of incrementing a change sequence field of a shortened beacon is well known for indicating change in beacon information. As disclosed in Figure 4 and [0088], Abraham teaches a low-overhead beacon frame including a change sequence field that is received at a station, where [0097] further discloses the STA can be configured to detect a change in the change sequence field. [0096], discloses the AP may increment the change sequence field 440 when one or more parameters of the AP has changed. As such, examiner maintains that the combination of Liu in view of Abraham teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues on Page 13-14 of applicants remarks:
Applicant respectfully submits that under Hytera Communs. Co. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., 841 Fed. Appx. 210 (Fed. Cir. 2021) both steps must be taught in the art. Applicant respectfully submits that based on the element indicating that the short beacon has changed from a known version of the short beacon: sending a probe request, wherein the probe request includes the element that indicates a version of the short beacon; and communicating on the medium according to the sent probe request is not taught in the cited art. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the previous office action, Applicant specifically cites “Hytera Communs. Co. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., 841 Fed. Appx. 210 (Fed. Cir. 2021)” and vaguely summaries “both steps must be taught” in the art. Examiner notes that the applicant has not specifically pointed out any sections or decisions that lead to that particular conclusion. Examiner further notes that the court case is not applicable to the issue being argued, since the method claims associated with cited court case do not include contingent or conditional limitations. As such, examiner is unclear how the court case overcomes the interpretation of contingent limitations of method claims as written in MPEP section 2111.04.
Examiner notes that in Hytera Communs. Co. v. Motorola Sols., Inc., 841 Fed. Appx. 210 (Fed. Cir. 2021), with respect to Hytera’s second challenge which focuses on the “selecting limitation” being written in conditional language with two alternative conditions and corresponding responses, the claim 7 in question is directed to a system claim, which is interpreted differently than conditional limitations included within a method claim. As recited in MPEP 2111.04, Section II Contingent Limitations,
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
As demonstrated in the previous office action, claims 1-4 and 18-21 are method claims that are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on MPEP 2111.04. For example, Claim 1 recites “based on the element indicating the short beacon has not changed from a known version of the short beacon: communicating on a medium; and based on the element indicating that the short beacon has changed from a known version of the short beacon: sending a probe request….and communicating on the medium according to the sent probe request.”
Examiner notes that when a short beacon is received that comprises an element that indicates a version of the short beacon, the element can only indicate a single version value at any one time. That is either the element indicates that the short bacon has not changed from a known version OR it indicates that the short beacon has changed from a known version. As indicated in the underlined section above of Section II. Contingent limitations in MPEP 2111.04, “if the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” The method of claim 1 (and similarly claim 21) can be performed completely only if one of the conditions occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the probe request includes the element that indicates a version of the short beacon”. Examiner notes that the instant application does not provide disclosure that supports such a feature. For example, [0065], [0081], [0084] are the only recitations that further describe the claimed “probe request”, but does not further provide any evidence of a probe request include a version of the short beacon. [0058], [0068]-[0072], and [0077], are disclosure that provides evidence of a beacon including a version number, but does not indicate a probe request including a version of the short beacon. [0062], [0068]-[0072], [0077], [0084]-[0085], all provide disclosure for a change count or change indicator of a short beacon sent by an AP, but does not describe a probe request including a version of the short beacon.
[0084], specifically recites “The AP may indicate change of information by adding a “change sequence” to the short beacon to force STAs to listen for a full beacon or through probe request.” However, such a recitation does not imply that a “change sequence value” is included within a probe request. The AP may indicate change information by:
adding a “change sequence” to the short beacon to force STAs to listen for a full beacon OR
through a probe request
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification.
Independent claims 5, 13, and 21 and corresponding dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-16, 18-21 are rejected for having the same claimed feature indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2012/0314696 A1 (support found in provisional application no. 61/588,852, filed on Jan. 20, 2012 and provisional application no. 61/494,609, filed on Jun. 8, 2011) to Liu (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of US 2013/0177001 A1 (provisional application no. 61/596,775, filed on Feb. 9, 2012) to Abraham et al. (hereinafter “Abraham”)
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches A method implemented by a station (STA) in wireless communication with a wireless local area network, (Figure 1 and [0085], illustrates client stations 25) the method comprising:
receiving a short beacon comprising an element that indicates a version of the short beacon, the element having been incremented when the contents of the short beacon have changed, wherein the short beacon that reduces overhead while providing necessary information; ([0154], discloses when a station is in a PS mode, the station wakes up periodically to listen for beacon frames and/or frames including a traffic indication map (TIM) to determine whether another station (e.g., the AP 14) has data buffered for the station. [0021], [0025], and [0178], discloses a network interface of a station (e.g., the AP 14), generates beacons having less information (i.e. short beacon reducing overhead while providing necessary information) as compared to the beacons described in the current IEEE 802.11 Standard, for example. if a number of BSS information elements (IEs) that recently changed is large enough so that all of the IEs that recently changed cannot fit within one beacon frame, the network interface may be configured to include in the beacon an indication of changed BSS IEs that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll. For example, the beacon includes a field that indicates whether BSS IEs have changed and that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll, in an embodiment. [0195]-[0197], discloses a shortened beacon frame comprising a change sequence field 720 (i.e. element indicating a version of the short beacon) (which indicates whether BSS information has changed and thus whether the station should process other fields of the beacon frame 700 to determine what BSS information has changed)
based on the element indicates that the short beacon has not changed from a known version of the short beacon: communicating on a medium; (Examiner notes that the claim language is written as a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04 recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met’. Since the method can be performed in which a condition, in which the beacon has not changed, can occur, the action of sending a probe request is not required to perform the invention. [0154], discloses when a station is in a PS mode, the station wakes up periodically to listen for beacon frames and/or frames including a traffic indication map (TIM) to determine whether another station (e.g., the AP 14) has data buffered for the station. Examiner notes that an AP transmitting buffered units to the station is indicative of the station accessing the medium. [0178], discloses for example, the beacon includes a field that indicates whether BSS IEs have changed and that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll, in an embodiment. In an embodiment, in response to such a poll, the network interface of the AP transmits information that conveys the changed IEs to the polling station. In an embodiment, a station polls the AP for information regarding changed IEs using a probe request frame, and the AP responds to the probe request frame with a probe response frame, where the probe response frame includes the requested information. Examiner notes that a probe request is only triggered when the field within the beacon indicates that BSS IEs have changed)
Liu teaches a short beacon comprising a change sequence field for indicating change in the short beacon, but does not explicitly teach the element having been incremented when the contents of the short beacon have changed.
However, the concept of incrementing a change sequence field for indicating change of a short beacon is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Abraham discloses in [0071] and [0075], a low-overhead beacon frame 400, also referred to as a short beacon. Comprising a change sequence field 440. [0096], discloses In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, the change sequence field 440 can serve to provide a sequence number indicative of a change in network information. In the illustrated embodiment, the change sequence field 440 serves keep track of changes to the AP 104. In an embodiment, the AP 104 may increment the change sequence field 440 when one or more parameters of the AP 104 change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu to include the above limitations as suggested by Abraham, thereby reducing the overhead in transmitting beacon signals, thus allowing for more efficient communication of data as indicated in [0008]-[0009] of Abraham.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 1, wherein Liu further teaches the element comprising a version number information field. ([0196]-[0197], discloses change sequence field)
Regarding Claim 4, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 2, wherein Liu further teaches teach the version number information field comprises at least one of a Common Advertisement Group (CAG) number or an AP Configuration Sequence Number (AP-CSN). ([0196]-[0197], discloses change sequence field (which indicates whether BSS information has changed (i.e. AP configuration sequence number))
Regarding Claim 21, Liu teaches A method implemented by a station (STA) in a wireless local area network, the method comprising: (Figure 1 and [0085], illustrates client stations 25)
receiving a short beacon frame comprising an element that indicates a current version of the short beacon frame, wherein the short beacon frame includes less information than a beacon frame; ([0154], discloses when a station is in a PS mode, the station wakes up periodically to listen for beacon frames and/or frames including a traffic indication map (TIM) to determine whether another station (e.g., the AP 14) has data buffered for the station. [0021], [0025], and [0178], discloses a network interface of a station (e.g., the AP 14), generates beacons having less information (i.e. short beacon) as compared to the beacons described in the current IEEE 802.11 Standard, for example. if a number of BSS information elements (IEs) that recently changed is large enough so that all of the IEs that recently changed cannot fit within one beacon frame, the network interface may be configured to include in the beacon an indication of changed BSS IEs that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll. For example, the beacon includes a field that indicates whether BSS IEs have changed and that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll, in an embodiment. [0195]-[0197], discloses a shortened beacon frame comprising a change sequence field 720 (which indicates whether BSS information has changed and thus whether the station should process other fields of the beacon frame 700 to determine what BSS information has changed)
on a condition that the current version of the short beacon frame equals a known version of the short beacon frame: communicating on a wireless medium; and (Examiner notes that the claim language is written as a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04 recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met’. Since the method can be performed in which a condition, in which the beacon has not changed, can occur, the action of sending a probe request is not required to perform the invention. [0154], discloses when a station is in a PS mode, the station wakes up periodically to listen for beacon frames and/or frames including a traffic indication map (TIM) to determine whether another station (e.g., the AP 14) has data buffered for the station. Examiner notes that an AP transmitting buffered units to the station is indicative of the station accessing the medium. [0178], discloses for example, the beacon includes a field that indicates whether BSS IEs have changed and that prompts stations to poll the AP to cause the AP to transmit the changed BSS IEs in response to the poll, in an embodiment. In an embodiment, in response to such a poll, the network interface of the AP transmits information that conveys the changed IEs to the polling station. In an embodiment, a station polls the AP for information regarding changed IEs using a probe request frame, and the AP responds to the probe request frame with a probe response frame, where the probe response frame includes the requested information. Examiner notes that a probe request is only triggered when the field within the beacon indicates that BSS IEs have changed)
Liu teaches a short beacon comprising a change sequence field for indicating change in the short beacon, but does not explicitly teach the element having been incremented when the contents of the short beacon have changed.
However, the concept of incrementing a change sequence field for indicating change of a short beacon is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Abraham discloses in [0071] and [0075], a low-overhead beacon frame 400, also referred to as a short beacon. Comprising a change sequence field 440. [0096], discloses In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, the change sequence field 440 can serve to provide a sequence number indicative of a change in network information. In the illustrated embodiment, the change sequence field 440 serves keep track of changes to the AP 104. In an embodiment, the AP 104 may increment the change sequence field 440 when one or more parameters of the AP 104 change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu to include the above limitations as suggested by Abraham, thereby reducing the overhead in transmitting beacon signals, thus allowing for more efficient communication of data as indicated in [0008]-[0009] of Abraham.
Liu teaches a short beacon comprising a change sequence field for indicating change in the short beacon, but does not explicitly teach the element having been incremented when the contents of the short beacon changed.
However, the concept of incrementing a change sequence field for indicating change of a short beacon is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Abraham discloses in [0071] and [0075], a low-overhead beacon frame 400, also referred to as a short beacon. Comprising a change sequence field 440. [0096], discloses In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 4, the change sequence field 440 can serve to provide a sequence number indicative of a change in network information. In the illustrated embodiment, the change sequence field 440 serves keep track of changes to the AP 104. In an embodiment, the AP 104 may increment the change sequence field 440 when one or more parameters of the AP 104 change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu to include the above limitations as suggested by Abraham, thereby reducing the overhead in transmitting beacon signals, thus allowing for more efficient communication of data as indicated in [0008]-[0009] of Abraham.
Regarding Claim 18, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 21, wherein Liu further teaches the element value comprising a version number information field. ([0196]-[0197], discloses change sequence field)
Regarding Claim 19, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 21, wherein Liu further teaches the version number information field comprises at least one of a Common Advertisement Group (CAG) number or an AP Configuration Sequence Number (AP-CSN). ([0196]-[0197], discloses change sequence field (which indicates whether BSS information has changed (i.e. AP configuration sequence number))
Claims 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu/Abraham in view of US Patent Application Publication NO. 2013/0107703 A1 (provisional application NO. 61/586,600, filed on Jan. 13, 2012) to Cherian et al. (hereinafter “Cherian”) and “MLME Scanning Procedures” (from IDS, Page 3, filed on 04/08/2019) to Stephenson et al. (hereinafter “Stephenson”)
Regarding Claim 3, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 1, wherein
Liu/Abraham does not explicitly teach the short beacon includes fast initial link setup (FILS) information for use with a Media Access Control (MAC) Layer Management Entity (MLME), comparing information of a MLME-SCAN.request primitive with the FILS information, and selecting an access point AP, for linking on a condition that the STA determines that sufficient network service information was obtained from the scan and that the AP satisfies STA requirements.
However, the concept of a FILS discovery beacon, which is an example of a very short beacon, is well known in the art. For example, in a similar field of endeavor, Cherian discloses systems and methods for fast initial link setup, in which Figure 3, [0124] and [0171] illustrate a fast initial link setup beacon (FILS discovery frame), which comprises a compressed SSID field (FILS information). [0181], further discloses using a hashing function to retrieve a second identifier from a first identifier, where the bit length of the second identifier is less than the bit length of the first identifier. [0217], further discloses the STA receives a beacon from the AP and determine if the AP is suitable. [0284]-0285], further discloses the STA is assigned one or more network domain identifiers for obtaining a network service, where each network domain identifier identifies a respective one of a plurality of APs configured to provide a network service. The STA can receive a beacon from an AP including two or more network domain identifiers, and selects the AP associated with an assigned network domain identifier that is included in the received network domain identifiers (i.e. comparing FILS information in a scan) to establish a link with the AP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu/Abraham to include the above limitations as suggested by Cherian, in order to reduce transmit time and amount of processing required to decode beacons, thus allowing the STA to establish a wireless link with the AP in less time as indicated in [0105] and [0133] of Cherian.
Liu/Abraham/Cherian does not explicitly teach comparing information of a MLME-SCAN.request primitive with the FILS information; invoking a MLME-SCAN.confirm primitive in response to scan results; reporting the MLME-SCAN.confirm primitive on a condition that the comparing information produced a match;
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stephenson discloses in Section 11.1.3, upon receipt of the MLME-SCAN.request primitive, a non-interworking capable STA shall perform scanning, in which the STA can scan for beacon frames (i.e. discovery frames) containing the ESS’s SSID. Section 10.3.2.1, discloses a MLME-SCAN.request, including an SSID parameter (i.e. information). Section 11.1.3, discloses upon receipt of the MLME-SCAN.request primitive, an interworking capable STA shall perform scanning. The SSID parameter indicates the SSID for which to scan. To become a member of a particular ESS using passive scanning, an interworking capable STA shall scan for Beacon frames containing that ESS’s SSID, returning all Beacon frames matching the desired SSID, HESSID and Network Type in the BSSDescriptionSet parameter of the corresponding MLME-SCAN.confirm primitive with the appropriate bits in the Capabilities Information field indicating whether the Beacon came from an infrastructure BSS or IBSS. Upon completion of scanning, an MLME-SCAN.confirm is issued by the MLME indicating all of the BSS information received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu/Abraham/Cherian to include the above limitations as suggested by Stephenson, to allow for scanning procedures to support multiple SSID as indicated in the Abstract of Stephenson.
Claims 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu/Abraham in view of “A Partial TGu Proposal on Optimization of Delivery of Network Discovery Information through Layered Beacons” – IEEE 802.11-06/0286r1 to Faccin et al. (hereinafter “Faccin”)
Regarding Claim 20, Liu/Abraham teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising:
Liu/Abraham does not explicitly teach defining a plurality of beacons according to a multiple level beacon scheme in which each beacon level has a different transmission periodicity according to system configuration parameters, wherein content in each defined multiple level beacon is at least one of having partial overlap, having no overlap, or being forward inclusive.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Faccin discloses in Section 2.2, a layered beacons (i.e. multiple level beacon scheme) proposal introducing two types of beacon frames (i.e. plurality of beacons) including a Network Maintenance Beacon (NMB) and a Network Discovery beacon (NDB). A first type of beacon frame, called Network Maintenance Beacon (NMB), is shorter and content is the same as in the legacy beacon frame, with the addition of a new Layered Beacons IE. The second type of beacon frame, called Network Discovery Beacon (NDB), is longer than NMB and includes legacy beacon information (i.e. having partial overlap with NMB). and necessary information for the discovering STAs (i.e., NDB=NMB+discovery information). Furthermore it is proposed that NMB and NDB are sent using self-adjusting time intervals depending on the system load. The basic interval is legacy beacon interval. The following rules apply (i.e. different transmission periodicity defined according to system configuration parameters):
- Light load: NDB sent in every TBTT
- Medium load: every n:th beacon is NDB, otherwise NMB is sent
- High load: NMB sent in every TBTT. NDB not sent at all.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Liu to include the above limitations as suggested by Liu/Abraham for optimizing the delivery of network discovery information through layered beacons as indicated in Section 2.2 of Faccin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477