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 .
Response to Amendment
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b): Applicant has amended claim 1 and 11 to overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) which have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the amended portions of the claimed invention including “probe queries to from two to four non-associated APs” and that the APs are “selected based on known location; estimating a location of the wireless client relative to the two to four queried non-associated APs.”
Examiner’s Note: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has amended the claim to include the feature that the APs have a known location. A new search was conducted resulting in a new grounds of rejection with a new reference.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach claim 2 in view of the amended portions of claim 1 as Vamaraju refers not to a PCL with information about neighboring APs but to information provided by the AP to the wireless client in response to a probe request.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has amended the claim to include the feature that the APs have a known location. A new search was conducted resulting in a new grounds of rejection with a new reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the improved connection” in line 18 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not define “improved connection” before reciting “the improved connection” which renders the term indefinite as it is not clear the connection two which the claim is referring. Claim 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) (US 20160007278 A1) in view of Cao et al. (“Cao”) (US 20140098682 A1) and Batta et al. (“Batta”) (US 20100246419 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches:
A method for managing connection of a wireless client to a wireless network comprising a plurality of access points (APs), wherein each AP is under central control by a network controller [¶0045] the method comprising:
configuring a network controller to collect location information from the wireless client using a standardized hand-off protocol [¶0070, ¶0072, serving AP considered network controller, one may be designated as controller, obtains information on beacons from nearby APs corresponding to location information see ¶0045] by:
receiving at the wireless client a channel/AP list from a first associated AP [¶0072, AP sends client list of APs];
switching the wireless client to a different channel and actively submit probe queries to at least two neighboring non-associated APs on the channel/AP list [¶0070-73, BTM request client to perform beacon report on different RF of different APs];
measuring link parameters at the at least two neighboring non-associated APs by using the probe queries from the wireless client [¶0073, client scans list of RF channels for other APs, generates results in a beacon report (corresponding to measuring link parameters), see ¶0083-84 where scans include probe requests to APs on channels];
switching the wireless client back to the first associated AP [¶0073, in one embodiment, client switches back to the AP and provides results to the AP];
retrieving link parameters from the one or more queried non-associated APs [¶0073 results of scan of non-associated APs are retrieved by serving AP as they are reported by client to the AP, results corresponding to link parameters];
and providing information to the wireless client for linking to one of the non-associated APs [¶0073 “In this example, the AP can then use that list to recommend which AP to transition, including using those results to populate the BTM exchange list”] that provides the improved connection [¶0065 wherein switching client is for better service, see ¶0066, thus steps of ¶0070-73 are for purpose of switching client to AP with better i.e. improved service
Gupta teaches switching a device to a new AP but does not teach sending an AP list based on known locations of APs.
Cao teaches each AP has a known location, wherein the channel/AP list comprising from two to four neighboring non-associated APs on the channel/AP list, wherein the two to four queried non-associated APs are selected based on known location [¶0039, Serving AP may send list of AP neighbors, further populated with relative position of each AP neighbor, each AP aware of locations of neighbor APs as in ¶0029 wherein location and list disseminated by network controller, see Figure 2 ¶0018 list includes AP3, AP4, AP5 being three i.e. two to four APs]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify known locations of APs and a list with two to four APs. Gupta teaches a serving AP / controller that steers a client to different APs, and it would have been obvious to specify APs based on known location as in Cao who teaches this allows for generating a list of APs in the path of the client ¶0015 and allows for seamless roaming without interruption to quality of service ¶0003.
Gupta-Cao teaches obtaining results of neighboring APs but not to determine a position. Batta teaches estimating a location of the wireless client relative to the two to four queried non- associated APs [Figure 3 shows engine 218 obtaining RSSI measurements of three APs, calculate location of device 2, see ¶0044, ¶0062. Examiner notes engine 218 may be in any network device see end of ¶0039 “In other implementations, the trilateration engine 218 can be implemented at any other network infrastructure device (e.g., a network server, such as wired host 70).”],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the triangulation engine as in Batta with the AP in Gupta for using the strength information to determine a position. Gupta teaches receiving strength information of APs and it would have been obvious to determine a location as in Batta who teaches this allows for RSSI to be used to locate a WCD operating among the APs within the network ¶0007.
Regarding claim 2, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the channel/AP list comprises a preferred candidate list (PCL) comprising two or three neighboring non-associated APs [¶0039, Serving AP may send list of AP neighbors, further populated with relative position of each AP neighbor, each AP aware of locations of neighbor APs as in ¶0029 as disseminated by network controller, see Figure 2 ¶0018 list includes AP3, AP4, AP5 being three APs relative to location of device, corresponding to PCL as this preferred list is based on location of terminal, see rationale for combination as in claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the wireless network operates on an industry standard that comprises BSSID Transition Management (BTM) frames [Gupta ¶0070 teaches BTM frame exchange], and wherein the step of receiving at the wireless client is initiated by transmitting from the first associated AP an unsolicited BTM frame to trigger a selective scan of the one or more non-associated APs [Gupta ¶0073 request client to measure neighbor in order to populate BTM exchange list as part of BTM frame exchange, and ¶0081 wherein it may be a BTM request to trigger scan ¶0083].
Regarding claim 4, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the industry standard is IEEE 802.11v [Gupta ¶0070].
Regarding claim 5, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Gupta teaches link parameters but not signal strength.
Batta teaches wherein the link parameters retrieved from at least three APs include signal strength [¶0042, obtain RSSI information from WCD].
Gupta teaches receiving strength measurements but not using the strength to determine location. Batta teaches signal strength from at least three queried APs, and wherein a location of the wireless client is estimated from a combination of the signal strengths retrieved at the at least three APs [Figure 3 shows engine 218 obtaining RSSI measurements of three APs, calculate location of device 2, see ¶0044, ¶0062, use collected RSSI of three APs to determine distance values and subsequently estimate location of device 2. Examiner notes engine 218 may be in any network device see end of ¶0039 “In other implementations, the trilateration engine 218 can be implemented at any other network infrastructure device (e.g., a network server, such as wired host 70).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify using the strength information to determine a position as in Batta. Gupta teaches link parameters and it would have been obvious to determine RSSI-based location as in Batta who teaches this allows for RSSI to be used to locate a WCD operating among the APs within the network ¶0007.
Regarding claim 6, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the estimated location of the wireless client comprises an intersection of symmetrical areas having diameters corresponding to the signal strengths [Batta ¶0062-66, Figure 5, shows APs with intersection of circular (symmetrical) areas with diameters (size of the circle) corresponding to distance from device determined based on signal strength as in ¶0044, see rationale for combination as in claim 5].
Regarding claim 9, Gupta-Cao teaches:
The method of claim 7.
Gupta teaches obtaining results of neighboring APs but not to determine a position. Batta teaches wherein the link parameters retrieved from the preferred non-associated candidate APs include signal strength [¶0042, RSSI obtained, and Figure 3 shows engine 218 obtaining RSSI measurements of three APs, calculate location of device 2, see ¶0044, ¶0062. Examiner notes engine 218 may be in any network device see end of ¶0039 “In other implementations, the trilateration engine 218 can be implemented at any other network infrastructure device (e.g., a network server, such as wired host 70).”],
and wherein a location of the wireless client is estimated from a combination of the signal strengths retrieved at the preferred non-associated candidate APs [Figure 3 shows engine 218 obtaining RSSI measurements of three APs, calculate location of device 2, see ¶0044, ¶0062 subsequently estimate location of device 2. Examiner notes engine 218 may be in any network device see end of ¶0039 “In other implementations, the trilateration engine 218 can be implemented at any other network infrastructure device (e.g., a network server, such as wired host 70).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the triangulation engine as in Batta with the AP in Gupta for using the strength information to determine a position. Gupta teaches receiving strength information of APs and it would have been obvious to determine a location as in Batta who teaches this allows for RSSI to be used to locate a WCD operating among the APs within the network ¶0007.
Regarding claim 10, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the estimated location of the wireless client comprises an intersection of symmetrical areas having diameters corresponding to the signal strengths [Batta ¶0062-66, Figure 5, shows APs with intersection of circular (symmetrical) areas with diameters (size of the circle) corresponding to distance from device determined based on signal strength as in ¶0044, see rationale for combination as in claim 9].
Regarding claim 11, Gupta teaches:
A method for managing connection of a wireless client to a wireless network comprising a plurality of access points (APs) and a network controller, wherein each AP has a location and is under central control by the network controller [¶0070, ¶0072, serving AP considered network controller, and APs under a central controller see ¶0045], the method comprising: receiving at the wireless client a channel/AP list from a first associated AP, the channel/AP list comprising neighboring non-associated APs relative to the first associated AP [¶0072, AP sends client list of neighboring APs];
switching the wireless client to a different channel and actively submit probe requests to at least two neighboring non-associated APs on the channel/AP list [¶0070-73, BTM request client to perform beacon report on different RF of a different AP, see ¶0083-84 where scans include probe requests to APs on channels, see ¶0083-84 where scans include probe requests to APs on channels];
measuring link parameters at the at least two neighboring non-associated APs by using the probe queries from the wireless client [¶0073, client scans list of RF channels for other APs, generates results in a beacon report (corresponding to measuring link parameters)];
switching the wireless client back to the first associated AP [¶0073, in one embodiment, client switches back to the AP and provides results to the AP];
retrieving link parameters from the at least two neighboring non-associated APs [¶0073 results of scan of non-associated APs are retrieved by serving AP as they are reported by client to the AP, results corresponding to link parameters];
and providing information to the wireless client for linking to one of the at least two neighboring non-associated APs based on the link parameters [¶0073 “In this example, the AP can then use that list to recommend which AP to transition, including using those results to populate the BTM exchange list”] that provides the improved connection [¶0065 wherein switching client is for better service, see ¶0066, thus steps o ¶0070-73 are for purpose of switching client to AP with better i.e. improved service].
Gupta teaches switching a device to a new AP but does not teach sending an AP list based on known locations of APs.
Cao teaches each AP has a known location, wherein the channel/AP list comprising from two to four neighboring non-associated APs relative to the first associated AP, and the scan is of the two to four non-associated candidate APs [¶0039, Serving AP may send list of AP neighbors, further populated with relative position of each AP neighbor, each AP aware of locations of neighbor APs as in ¶0029, see Figure 5 ¶0022 list includes AP3, AP5, AP4, AP6 being four APs]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify known locations of APs and a list with two to four APs. Gupta teaches a serving AP / controller that steers a client to different APs, and it would have been obvious to specify APs based on known location as in Cao who teaches this allows for generating a list of APs in the path of the client ¶0015 and allows for seamless roaming without interruption to quality of service ¶0003.
Gupta-Cao teaches obtaining results of neighboring APs but not to determine a position. Batta teaches estimating a location of the wireless client relative to the two to four queried non- associated APs [Figure 3 shows engine 218 obtaining RSSI measurements of three APs, calculate location of device 2, see ¶0044, ¶0062. Examiner notes engine 218 may be in any network device see end of ¶0039 “In other implementations, the trilateration engine 218 can be implemented at any other network infrastructure device (e.g., a network server, such as wired host 70).”],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the triangulation engine as in Batta with the AP in Gupta for using the strength information to determine a position. Gupta teaches receiving strength information of APs and it would have been obvious to determine a location as in Batta who teaches this allows for RSSI to be used to locate a WCD operating among the APs within the network ¶0007.
Regarding claim 12, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the channel/AP list comprises a preferred candidate list (PCL) comprising two or three neighboring non-associated APs [¶0039, Serving AP may send list of AP neighbors, further populated with relative position of each AP neighbor, each AP aware of locations of neighbor APs as in ¶0029 as disseminated by network controller, see Figure 2 ¶0018 list includes AP3, AP4, AP5 being three APs, corresponding to PCL as this preferred list is based on location of terminal, see rationale for combination as in claim 11].
Regarding claim 13, Gupta-Cao-Batta teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the wireless network operates on an industry standard that comprises BSSID Transition Management (BTM) frames [Gupta ¶0070 teaches BTM frame exchange], and wherein the step of receiving at the wireless client is initiated by transmitting from the first associated AP an unsolicited BTM frame to trigger a selective scan of the from two to four neighboring non-associated APs [Gupta ¶0073 request client to measure neighbor, and ¶0081 wherein it may be a BTM request to trigger scan ¶0083].
Regarding claim 14, Gupta-Cao-Batta l teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the industry standard is IEEE 802.11v [Gupta ¶0070].
Regarding claim 15-16, see the rejection for claims 5-6 which are identical.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (“Gupta”) (US 20160007278 A1) in view of Cao et al. (“Cao”) (US 20140098682 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta teaches:
A method for managing connection of a wireless client to a wireless network comprising a central controller and a plurality of access points (APs) that are controlled by the central controller [¶0070, ¶0072, serving AP considered network controller, one may be designated as controller see ¶0045], wherein the wireless network operates on an industry standard protocol that comprises BSSID Transition Management (BTM) frames [¶0070-73 BTM exchange according to 802.11v], the method comprising: transmitting from a first associated AP in communication with the wireless client an unsolicited BTM frame comprising a preferred list of non-associated APs, wherein the preferred list of non-associated APs comprises neighboring APs [¶0072-73, AP sends AP and RF list to client as part of BTM exchange corresponding to “unsolicited BTM frame comprising a preferred list of non-associated APs”], wherein the BTM frame triggers a selective scan by the wireless client of the preferred non-associated candidate APs [¶0073 client scans RF channels provided by the AP corresponding to selected scan]; returning from the wireless client to the controller link parameters for each of the preferred non-associated candidate APs [¶0073 client reports the results of the beacon report to the AP];
And if the link parameters for one of the preferred non-associated APs indicate an improved connection relative to the first associated AP, switching the wireless client to the preferred non-associated AP that provides the improved connection [¶0065 wherein switching client is for better service, see ¶0066, thus steps o ¶0070-73 are for purpose of switching client to AP with better i.e. improved service]
Gupta teaches switching a device to a new AP but does not teach sending an AP list based on known locations of APs.
Cao teaches two to four APs wherein the preferred list of non-associated APs comprises neighboring APs having a known location relative to the first associated AP, and the scan is of the two to four non-associated candidate APs [¶0039, Serving AP may send list of AP neighbors, further populated with relative position of each AP neighbor, each AP aware of locations of neighbor APs as in ¶0029, see Figure 5 ¶0022 list includes AP3, AP5, AP4, AP6 being four APs]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify known locations of APs and a list with two to four APs. Gupta teaches a serving AP / controller that steers a client to different APs, and it would have been obvious to specify APs based on known location as in Cao who teaches this allows for generating a list of APs in the path of the client ¶0015 and allows for seamless roaming without interruption to quality of service ¶0003.
Regarding claim 8, Gupta-Cao teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the industry standard is IEEE 802.11v [Gupta ¶0070].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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 on 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478