DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the Drawings and Claims filed on 11/17/2025 comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 and have been entered. Consequently, objections to the Drawings and Claims 1 and 11-12 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 11/1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, which is that “the node waits the predetermined length of time after scanning channels for a joinable wireless network, but before requesting to join the wireless network” – See Resp.,¶1:10. To be sure, Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0053143 (hereinafter Zhang) discloses several wait times and delays during the scanning process. However, other parts of Zhang teach “specifications for STA access” including “a set of time intervals, a set of STAs, a set of traffic, or any combination thereof” – See [¶0240] either through an Initial Link Setup (ILS) element – See [¶0106], an Access Option Information Element – See [¶0236], or an enhanced ILS IE – See [¶0260]. In addition, several other references, including Harris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0120082 and Saikusa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0127468 disclose dynamic join time to alleviate congestion when too many STAs attempt a join procedure at the same time. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Zhang does not teach the amended limitation is moot.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: "indictor" should be "indic. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-5, 8-14, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0053143 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Zhang teaches a method, performed by a node, of controlling the node for joining a wireless network (“A method for active scanning in a wireless network” – See [¶0031] and “Fast Initial Link Setup (FILS)” – See [¶0063] whereby “[t]he initial link setup time may be defined as the amount of time required to gain an ability to send Internet Protocol (IP) traffic with a valid IP address through an AP” – See [¶0064] and “[a] FILS process may comprise five phases: AP discovery, network discovery, additional timing synchronization function (TSF), authentication and association, and higher layer IP setup” – See [¶0065]) the method comprising:
controlling the node to wait for a predetermined length of time, wherein the node waits the predetermined length of time after scanning channels for a joinable wireless network, but before requesting to join the wireless network (“At the end of a scanning process, a scan report may be generated, which lists all discovered BSSs and their parameters,” i.e., information from the detected Probe Responses or Beacon frames sent by the APs, including “Service Set ID (SSID), BSS type, beacon interval, timing parameters, physical layer (PHY) parameters,” and “[t]he STA may choose a BSS or AP to join according to a criterion” based on these parameters – See [¶¶0078-79], e.g., “[t]he AP may include an Initial Link Setup (ILS) element as shown in FIG. 3A in frames such as beacons, FILS Discovery frames, and Probe Responses, with the following fields . . . a bitmap containing 8 ILSC bits indicating which ILS Category or Categories of STAs may attempt to associate with the AP in the following period” and “an indication a period time during which the STAs for which ILSC bits set to 0 may not be allowed to attempt to associate with the AP” – See [¶¶0107-9], i.e., after scanning channels, a STA that received a beacon frame comprising an ILS element set by an AP may be controlled to wait a predetermined length of time before sending an association request to join the AP/network1);
receiving beacon messages communicated by nodes of the wireless network during the predetermined length of time (e.g., “The AP may include other information for UL channel access that may be related to FILS frames in its beacons, short beacons, probe response frames or any other type of control or management frames” – See [¶0235] and Fig. 9 describing AP policies, e.g., timing and conditions, for a STA to join the AP/network – See [¶¶0241-51] and Fig. 10, therefore each STA “tunned” on AP channels after the scanning process will receive these beacon messages),
wherein the received beacon messages indicate another node attempting to join the wireless network (e.g., “STA2 706's detection of a response to STA1 702's probe request 705 for the same target” – See [¶0168], whereby a “beacon may be used as a probe response” – See [¶0082])
analyzing a number of the received beacon messages to determine if a congestion condition is satisfied (“[a]ll beacons received may be buffered to extract information about the BSS that sent the beacons” – See [¶0071]; e.g., when “the STA overhears a Probe Request frame . . . with matching . . . target . . . at the STA, . . . the conditional probability that the STA cannot decode the Probe Response frame responding to the overheard probe Request, given that the overheard STA may decode such a Probe Response, is no more than a desired percentage (for example, 1%),” – See [¶0144], therefore when the number of Probe Response frames/beacons corresponding to the overheard request that are decoded by the STA decreases and the conditional probability increases then congestion occurred and a monitoring “FILS STA has sensed the wireless medium is highly loaded or highly contentious” – See [¶0283]); and
determining whether to control the node to join the wireless network based on the result of the analysis (for a FILS capable STA, “when it needs to conduct FILS process with an AP/BSS that is experiencing a high traffic load, either from associated STAs or from the other STAs conducting initial link setup,” e.g., as a result of the above analysis, the STA “may autonomously adapt the EDCA parameters of a lower ILSC or a lower AC, in order to assist the reduction of link access contention by shaping the bursty link access demands over time” – See [¶0280]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Zhang further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the predetermined length of time (“After a STA that is capable of expedited FILS receives a beacon or a short beacon or other management, FILS Discovery frame, or control frames that include the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element and/or the Access Option IE, the STA may obey access policies, such as access intervals, parameters, and the like, set by the Access Option IE when attempting to conduct any transmissions or medium access” – See [¶0255], i.e., each STA determines the wait time before joining from the received beacon messages carrying ILS/Access Option/Enhanced ILS information elements) between 0 and a maximum waiting time value (as shown in Fig. 10, “[t]he enhanced ILS element fields may include . . . Field 1-Field N 1056: each field may contain specifications for ILS . . . for a particular period(s) or beacon subinterval(s) and may have the following subfields: ILSC Indication 1058: the ILSC Indication subfield may indicate the ISL category or categories of the STAs that are allowed to conduct association with the AP in the period(s) or beacon subinterval(s) indicated in the Schedule subfield” – See [¶¶0260-65] wherein “the Schedule Subfield 1062 may indicate the duration of the period(s) or beacon subinterval(s),” e.g., “if duration Tl is specified in Field 1, duration T2 is specified in Field 2, and assuming that Period 1 starts at T0 (the starting point T0 may be referenced to a targeted beacon time, or to the end of current packet that contains the enhanced ILS element), then Period 1 may last from T0 to T0+ T1 and Period 2 may be from T0+ T1 to T0+Tl+T2. Similarly Period N maybe from T0+ ... +TN-1 to T0+ ... +TN-1+TN” – See [¶0267], i.e., some categories of STAs may join immediately, at T0=0 and others may wait until the end of Period N, maximum waiting time value).
Zhang inherently teaches that the wait time may be based on a random time value within the T0 to T0+ ... +TN-1+TN range (“the AP may allocate for different periods or beacon subintervals different variation of combinations of the various ILSCs of FILS traffic” – See [¶0276] whereby “[t]he ILSCs of STAs may also be determined randomly” – See [¶0277], therefore, each ISL category or categories of the STAs is randomly assigned a period Pi for performing FILS, i.e., join the AP/network).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Zhang further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein determining whether to control the node to join the wireless network comprises:
controlling the node to transmit a beacon request message if the analysis determines that an indicator based on the number of the received beacon messages does not satisfy the congestion condition (“a FILS STA has sensed the wireless medium is highly loaded or highly contentious” using “Monitoring/measurement based triggers” – See [¶0283], e.g., when “the conditional probability that the STA cannot decode the Probe Response frame responding to the overheard probe Request, given that the overheard [other] STA[s] may decode such a Probe Response, is no more than a desired percentage (for example, 1%)” – See [¶0144], the node/STA determines that the percentage indicator based on the number of the received beacon messages does not satisfy the congestion condition, and “[a]fter a STA that is capable of expedited FILS receives a beacon or a short beacon or other management, FILS Discovery frame, or control frames that include the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element and/or the Access Option IE . . . the STA may send a Probe Request using the EDCA parameters specified for AC_FILS or local FILS frames in the beacon” and “may set the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element to the values received from an AP to indicate that it is also capable of expedited FILS” – See [¶0255], i.e., the STA signals to the AP and the other STAs that it is in process of joining the AP with the agreed upon parameters);
controlling the node to join the wireless network if the analysis determines that an indicator based on the number of the received beacon messages does not satisfy the congestion condition (then, “[t]he STAs and the AP may use the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameters and the access policies set by the Access Option IE for the remainder of the FILS process. If there are multiple APs in the vicinity, a STA may adapt the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameters and access policies that the STA desires to associate with” – See [¶0257], e.g., the STA “may select to associate with the AP that, among other configurations, has the earliest schedules for the ILSC that the FILS STA belongs to” – See [¶0279]);
controlling the node to repeat the step of waiting for the predetermined length of time if the analysis determines that an indicator based on the number of the received beacon messages satisfies the congestion condition (“When a STA has lower ILSC, e.g., if it only has non-real time traffic, when it needs to conduct FILS process with an AP/BSS that is experiencing a high traffic load, either from associated STAs or from the other STAs conducting initial link setup, it may autonomously adapt the EDCA parameters of a lower ILSC or a lower AC, in order to assist the reduction of link access contention by shaping the bursty link access demands over time” – See [¶0280], e.g., the STA may autonomously set its ILSC to a value corresponding to STAs for which the “ILSC bits [are] set to 0 [and the STAs] may not be allowed to attempt to associate with the AP” for predetermined “ILS Time 358” – See [¶0109] and Fig. 3A; furthermore, because the STA already had a lower ILSC, hence it waited for a predetermined time, the STA repeats the wait time).
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Claim 3, Zhang further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the congestion condition is based on a threshold value indicating that the wireless network is congested (when “based on real traffic measurements in a Tokyo train station, the number of Probe Response packets is about four to five times more than the number of Probe Request packets, which indicates that each Probe Request packet triggers 4 to 5 Probe Response packets on average” the STA determines that congestion condition exists when that ratio is much smaller and the PHY-CCA.indication (busy) primitive has been detected; or when “air time occupancy by Probe Request/Response packets takes [more than]18.32%” or when “the number of Probe Request/Response packets is [more than] 35% of the total packets” meaning increased “probability of channel access collision” – See [¶0111]).
Therefore, Zhang anticipates Claim 4.
Regrading Claim 5, dependent from Claim 3, Zhang further teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: obtaining the indicator based on the number of the received beacon messages, wherein obtaining comprises one of:
dividing a total number of the received beacon messages during the predetermined length of time by a total number of nodes of the wireless network (“the STA may use pre-acquired knowledge of a location and a time of the day,” e.g., “the STA may know that it is in a densely populated location during peak time (such as a busy train station at peak commute time)” – See [¶0145] e.g., may know the number of nodes in the network and the predetermined wait time from the previous pass/scan at the train station, and divide the total number of the received beacon messages during the predetermined length of time by a total number of nodes of the wireless network to verify whether “the number of Probe Response packets is about four to five times more than the number of [overheard] Probe Request packets, which indicates that each Probe Request packet triggers 4 to 5 Probe Response packets on average” – See [¶0111]); or determining a maximum number of the received beacon messages from any one node of the wireless network during the predetermined length of time (as explained above, each STA sending a Probe Request packet triggers 4 to 5 Probe Response packets on average).
Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 8, dependent from Claim 1, Zhang, in Fig. 2, further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the node to join the wireless network comprises:
controlling the node to transmit an associate request message to the wireless network – See Fig. 2, step 210;
controlling the node to wait for an associate response message communicated by a node on the wireless network – See id.;
controlling the node to join the wireless network responsive to receiving the associate response message – See Fig. 2, step 212, higher layer IP setup; in addition, “[a] STA that becomes associated with an AP . . . may obey the most up-to-date access policies set by the most recent Access Option IE sent by that AP in all subsequent medium access” – See [¶0258], i.e., the joining is controlled by the AP policies received in FILS frames included in Association Response frames – See [¶0221].
Therefore, Zhang anticipates Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, dependent from Claim 8, Zhang teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising controlling the node to wait for a scanning time period responsive to the node transmitting the beacon request message (“When the AP capable of expedited FILS receives a Probe Request frame from a STA including an AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element with the AIFSN, ECW min and ECW max fields set to zero, the AP may respond with a Probe Response with the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element including all the AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameters” – See [¶0256], whereby the Probe Request may be addressed to the wildcard SSID as used in congestion analysis – See [¶0111]; then “[a] FILS STA that wishes to conduct FILS process” and “to associate with the AP that, among other configurations, has the earliest schedules for the ILSC that the FILS STA belongs to” – See [¶0279] must wait for a scanning period of time for “hearing Probe Responses, FILS Discovery frames, beacons, short beacons, or other type frames containing the enhanced ILS element” from all neighboring APs – See id.).
Therefore, Claim 9 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed on a computing device having a processing system within a node, cause the processing system to perform of the steps of the system to perform the method of claim 1 (“the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor” – See [¶0310], listing several types of non-transitory computer readable medium comprising the instructions). Because Amended Claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang, Claim 10 is also anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Amended Claim 11, Zhang further teaches a system (“As shown in FIG. 1B, the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/ touchpad 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and other peripherals 138” – See [¶0045])
within a node for controlling the node for joining a wireless network (to perform “[a]n initial link setup process as well as Fast Initial Link Setup (FILS)” – See [¶0063]), the system comprising:
a control unit (e.g., the processor 118 in Fig. 1B) configured with the features recited in Amended Claim 1 using the same claim language;
a communication interface (“the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may include multiple transceivers for communicating with different wireless networks over different wireless links” e.g., using “cellular-based radio technology, and with the base station 114b, which may employ an IEEE 802 radio technology” – See [¶0044] and Fig. 1A; whereby “[a] STA tunes to each channel, for example, each on the candidate channel list and waits for the Beacon frames” and “[a]ll beacons received may be buffered to extract information about the BSS that sent the beacons” – See [¶¶0070-71]) configured to perform the steps recited in Amended Claim 1 using the same claim language.
Therefore, Amended Claim 11 is anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 12, dependent from Amended Claim 11, Zhang further teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to:
determine the predetermined length of time based on a random time value between 0 and a maximum waiting time value, as explained in Regarding Claim 2, supra;
analyze the received beacon messages from the communication interface with respect to a congestion condition, as explained in Regarding Claim 1, step 3, supra; and
determine whether to control the node to join the wireless network based on the result of the analysis as explained in Regarding Claim 1, step 4, supra.
Because Zhang anticipates both the system and the method performed by the system, Zhang anticipates Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from Claim 12, the claim language merely recites the last two steps of the method in Claim 2, only executed by the control unit of Claim 12, and no other limitations. Because each of Claims 2 and 12 is anticipated by Zhang, Claim 13 is also anticipated by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 14, dependent from Amended Claim 11, Zhang further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein responsive to control unit determining to control the node to join the wireless network, the communication interface is further configured to:
transmit a beacon request message (“the AP capable of expedited FILS receives a Probe Request frame from a STA including an AC_FILS or local FILS EDCA parameter set information element with the AIFSN, ECW min and ECW max fields set to zero,” e.g., in a beacon message from the STA – See [¶0256])
transmit an associate request message to the wireless network; and receive an associate response message (as shown at Step 210 in Fig. 3),
wherein the control unit is further configured to perform the combination of steps recited in Claims 8 and 9 using the same language.
Because Claims 8, 9 and 11 as amended are anticipated by Zhang, Claim 14 is also anticipated by Zhang.
In sum, Claims 1-5, 8-14, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Zhang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to Claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Harris, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0120082 (hereinafter Harris).
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, in the alternative that Zhang does not explicitly teach that the wait time may be based on a random time value between 0 and a maximum waiting time value, Harris teaches “a method [that] includes a joining node, not yet joined to a network” – See [¶0005] and “establishing a mechanism to indicate, or advertise, network congestion to nodes not yet joined to the network and further by enabling a joining node to establish a dynamic join time, which can be pushed forward or backward based on the indication of network congestion” – See [¶0015], whereby “the association sequence (i.e., the sequence for joining a node to the network 100) involves one or more nodes 110, including a node 110a that is already a member of the network 100, also referred to as a joined node 110a, and a node 110b that is not yet a member of the network 100” wherein “[t]he joined node 110a may have as its parent another joined node 110a, which is also a member of the network 100” – See [¶0017] and Fig. 1.
Harris further teaches that the wait time may be based on a random time value between 0 and a maximum waiting time value (“node 110b may determine a randomized join time 130, which may be a specific point in time . . . from when the joining node 110b decides to join the network 100 and spans a time length that is predetermined”– See [¶0024]; “the join window enables the join time 130 to be limited to a certain timeframe,” e.g., fifteen minutes – See [¶0044] and “the length of the join window may be dynamic based on network congestion,” e.g., “adjusted upward toward a maximum join time, JM if the network 100 is deemed congested – See [¶0049]; furthermore, “the randomization of the join time 130 within the join window spreads out the join times 130 of multiple joining nodes 110b” when “multiple nodes 110 may seek to join a network 100 at the same time”– See [¶0044]).
Thus, Harris and Zhang each teaches a method of controlling a node for joining a wireless network based on received beacon messages. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the randomization of the join time to spread the joining traffic load, as taught in Harris, could be combined with the scheduling of the association/joining step of the ILSCs of STAs taught by Zhang because they both serve the purpose of optimizing access when multiple nodes attempt to join a network. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of randomizing the joining time in order to spread the traffic load when multiple STAs try to join the AP/network as taught by Harris.
Therefore, Claim 2 is, in the alternative, obvious over Zhang in view of Harris.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent from Claim 3, although Zhang implicitly teaches, through ILSC values, determining the predetermined length of time based on a random time value between 0 and a maximum waiting time value, Zhang does not teach that controlling the node to repeat the step of waiting for the predetermined length of time further comprises: determining a new maximum waiting time based on a previous maximum waiting time.
Harris teaches that the wait time may be based on a random time value between 0 and a maximum waiting time value (“node 110b may determine a randomized join time 130, which may be a specific point in time . . . from when the joining node 110b decides to join the network 100 and spans a time length that is predetermined”– See [¶0024]; “the join window enables the join time 130 to be limited to a certain timeframe,” e.g., fifteen minutes – See [¶0044]).
Harris further teaches determining the predetermined length of time based on a random time value between 0 and the new maximum waiting time value (“the length of the join window may be dynamic based on network congestion” for example, “the join time 130, J, may be adjusted upward toward a maximum join time, JM if the network 100 is deemed congested, and the join time 130 may be adjusted toward a minimum join time, Jm, if the network 100 is deemed not congested” e.g., “the adjusted [maximum] join time, J2, may be calculated based on the existing [maximum] join time, J1 ; the passage of time ( e.g., in seconds), t, since the joining node 110b observed a different value in a congestion variable 125; and the congestion variable, C” taking into account a minimum time threshold tmin to stabilize the network state – See [¶0049]; furthermore, “the randomization of the join time 130 within the join window spreads out the join times 130 of multiple joining nodes 110b” when “multiple nodes 110 may seek to join a network 100 at the same time”– See [¶0044] and wherein the maximum is the new maximum join time).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the step of dynamically adjusting the maximum wait time at each node listening for beacon messages to determine when to join the network based on the congestion state of the network, as taught in Harris, could be combined with the method of controlling the node for initial link setup based on overhearing the Probe Reponses to other nodes’ Probe Requests because they both serve the purpose of optimizing access when multiple nodes attempt to join a network simultaneously Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of dynamically adapting the wait time to join based on whether the node experiences a failure in joining the network, as taught by Harris.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Zhang in view of Harris.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Claim 6, Zhang does not teach how to calculate a dynamically adjusted wait time to join a network2.
Harris further teaches wherein determining the new maximum waiting time comprises one or more of: multiplying the previous maximum waiting time by a predetermined constant; and multiplying the previous maximum waiting time by an indicator based on the received beacon messages (“the adjusted [maximum] join time, J2, may be calculated based on the existing [maximum] join time, J1; the passage of time (e.g., in seconds), t, since the joining node 110b observed a different value in a congestion variable 125; and the congestion variable, C” wherein the previous maximum waiting time J1 is multiplied by a scalar α that indicates “how aggressively the join time 130 is increased or decreased after the threshold time is met” – See [¶0051], wherein the threshold is measured “since the joining node 110b observed a different value in a congestion variable 125” in the received beacon messages – See [¶0049]).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Zhang in view of Harris.
In sum, Claims 6-7, and Claim 2 in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang in view of Harris.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saikusa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0127468 disclose dynamic join time to alleviate congestion;
Abouelseoud et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0116851, teaches wireless meshed networks and controlling transmission of beacon request messages using a beacon master;
Wijting et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,007,954 discloses a method of determining the status of a beacon based on a beacon map generated and transmitted by a receiving node to provide information relating to one or more of the received beacons, such as a time stamp or other time information for the beacon and the originating wireless node for the beacon, such as an address of the originating wireless node;
Chung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0182705 discloses a method of managing network fluctuations in an industrial wireless sensor network by measuring a network congestion rate on the basis of a number of times an association request message is received and a number of times carrier sensing is performed; describes IEEE 802.15.4e standard support for various media access control (MAC) modes such as Deterministic and Synchronous Multi-channel Extension (DSME), Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), Low Latency (LL), Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Blink mode;
Kohvakka et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080253327 discloses a method for arranging communication in a wireless network of sensors that enables reducing the overall power consumption of nodes whereby unnecessary network scanning is reduced by transmitting so-called idle beacons, which indicate time to a subsequent worthwhile reception time;
Farrag et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090103501 discloses a method of operating a decentralized ad-hoc wireless network including wireless stations having a periodic superframe structure including a Scheduled Beacon Period, a Contended Beacon Period, Contention Periods (CPs) and Contention Free Periods (CFPs);
Park, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0119814 discloses a method to improve collision-avoidance in wireless networks by determining a current transmission interval comprising a series of beacon intervals, each of the series of beacon intervals comprising a plurality of time slots, randomly selecting one of the series of beacon intervals, and randomly selecting one of the plurality of time slots within the selected beacon interval, and sending a join request during the selected time slot;
Balasubramanian, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0250851 discloses a method for a station to determine that an access point is suitable for receiving service if a FER for beacon frames received from the access point is below an FER threshold and/or a particular percentage of RSSI measurements for the access point is above an RSSI threshold;
Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0115922 a method for receiving a backoff value at a wireless station based on a position of the station within a traffic indication map, the backoff value is determined by multiplying the backoff number by a predetermined time value;
Sokullu et al., “Combined Effects of Mobility, Congestion and Contention on Network Performance for IEEE 802.15.4 Based Networks”; 978-1-4244-2881-6/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE; Downloaded on April 21,2025 at 21:26:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore discloses that Beacon frame is sent in the first slot of each superframe and used to synchronize the attached devices, to identify the PAN and describes the structure of superframes;
Meghji et al., “Performance Evaluation of 802.15.4 Medium Access Control During Network Association and Synchronization for Sensor Networks,” IEEE ICUFN 2012.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 It is noted that the present disclosure states that this wait time is not desirable – See Spec.,11:22-23 (“nodes 102 which have scanned all the channels but have not yet joined the wireless network become undetectable to other nodes attempting to join the wireless network” leading the other nodes to believe the network is not busy and “[a]s all nodes attempting to join the network make the same decision in this circumstance, this would result
in a congested network.”)
2 However, the method in Zhang teaches that a FILS process comprises “FILS frames that are localized to the MAC layer in IEEE 802.11 communication using enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA)” – See [¶0225], wherein dynamic contention windows (CW) are used such as “Exponent CWmin (ECWmin) and exponent CWmax (ECWmax) 810. The ECWmin and ECWmax define the CWmin and CWmax, respectively, that STAs desiring FILS with a current AP should adapt and are defined to be CWmin=2ECWmin-1 and CWmax=2ECWmax-1. CWmin and CWmax may be sufficiently large to accommodate an expected number of STAs performing FILS operations in a coming period by preventing excessive collisions and retransmissions of FILS frames” – See [¶0231] and Fig. 8.