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 .
This Office Action is in response to the request for continued examination correspondence filed 02/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 11-14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visuri et al. (US 20180176845) in view of IEEE Std 802.11ax-2021, Amendment to IEEE std 802.11-2020, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Lawyer (PHY) Specifications, Amendment 1: Enhancements for High-Efficiency WLAN (hereinafter “IEEE”).
Regarding claim 1, Visuri teaches a method in a controller, the method comprising:
establishing a connection with a wireless network (Fig 1A 170, 150 [0028]-[0029] connection to home network, access point);
performing a roam scan to detect a plurality of access points of the wireless network (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159] [0052]-[0053], [0057] scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, trigger or request information about access points. Scan for available access points and compare connectivity options provided by the visible access points based on rules and policies);
determining that a first access point of the plurality of detected access points satisfies a signal strength criterion (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159] - UE may use its radio system to measure the performance characteristics (RSSI etc.) of one or more of the visible access points. Determination in step 430 of which UEs should be offloaded to alternative network 160 will depend on these results obtained from radio systems (access points);
and selecting a roaming destination from the first access point and the second access point independent of whether the second access point satisfies the signal strength criterion (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0067]-[0070], [0158]-[0159], establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection; expressly discloses that, even when the signal strength of all visible access points is below the applicable threshold, the selection engine nevertheless selects on of the visible access points, namely the access point having the highest signal strength; further teaches that access-point selection may be based on one or more different parameters, including price and terms and conditions, with signal strength identified separately as merely one possible selection parameter).
But Visuri fails to teach determining that a second access point of the plurality of detected access points is physically co-located with the first access point based on an identifier of the second access point transmitted by the first access point;
However, IEEE teaches determining that a second access point of the plurality of detected access points is physically co-located with the first access point based on an identifier of the second access point transmitted by the first access point (Section 9.4.2.45, Fig 11.3a, defines Multiple BSSID element, where a transmitting AP places “Nontranmitted BSSID Profile” subelements in its Beacon/Probe response, Each such profile carries the BSSID (identifier) of another BSS/AP that is part of the same multiple-BSSID set; from that frame (sent by the first AP), a station can learn the identifier of the second AP and infer that it is co-located/affiliated with the first AP (same physical device/radio set)—See “Multiple BSSID element” section and figure titled “Example of Multiple BSSID element carrying Nontransmitted BSSID Profile subelements”).
Visuri teaches techniques for optimized roaming and offloading decisions by evaluating performance characteristics of different sectors or networks, and then sterring a device to a more suitable alternative when the current sector is congested. A POSITA would recognize that Virsuri’s approach relies on accurate detection and evaluation of alternative access points or sectors in order to optimize roaming and load balancing. IEEE through its Multiple BSSID element, teaches that an AP can transmit identifiers of other BSSIDs/APs that are co-located with it. By incorporating this known mechanism into Visuri’s roaming/offloading framework, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve roaming decisions by leveraging the transmitted identifiers to determine when two detected APs are physically co-located. This would reduce the overhead during roam scans, enable more accurate sector load balancing, and avoid redundant handovers, thus yielding the claimed method of detecting co-located access points and selecting a roaming destination accordingly. The combination would have been obvious because both references address optimizing wireless connectivity decisions, and the Multiple BSSID mechanism provides a standardized and efficient way to supply co-location information useful in Visuri’s offloading and roaming context.
Regarding claim 2, Visuri teaches the method wherein establishing a connection with the wireless network includes:
establishing a connection with a current access point of the plurality of access points (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, FIG 1C 160C 160B 170A, [0028]-[0029], [0052]-[0053], [0057] connections to multiple different access points);
and wherein determining that the first access point satisfies the signal strength criterion includes: determining that a difference between a signal strength of the first access point and a signal strength of the current access point exceeds a threshold (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 3, Visuri teaches the method wherein determining that the second access point is physically co- located with the first access point includes:
obtaining identifying data from the first access point during the roam scan (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points);
and extracting the identifier of the second access point from the identifying data (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data—specific data identifiers unique to each access point, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points);
Regarding claim 4, Visuri teaches wherein the identifying data includes the identifier of the second access point, and an indication that the second access point is co-located with the first access point ((Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138] , [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data—specific data identifiers unique to each access point, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 6, Visuri teaches wherein determining that the second access point is physically co- located with the first access point includes: comparing an identifier of the first access point with the identifier of the second access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points, identifiers), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 7, Visuri teaches wherein the comparing includes:
determining that a difference between a portion of the identifier of the first access point and a portion of the identifier of the second access point is less than a threshold (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points, identifiers), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 8, Visuri teaches wherein the portion of the identifier of the first access point includes at least one octet of a media access controller (MAC) address of the first access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, [0138] measurement report may comprise more than one identifier and one or more performance indicators, measurement report may also include network or network element identifiers (access points) within vicinity of the UE within MAC address); and
and wherein the portion of the identifier of the second access point includes at least one corresponding octet of a media access controller (MAC) address of the second access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, [0138] measurement report may comprise more than one identifier and one or more performance indicators, measurement report may also include network or network element identifiers (access points) within vicinity of the UE within MAC address).
Regarding claim 9, Visuri teaches further comprising: responsive to determining that the first access point satisfies the signal strength criterion, adding the first access point to a pass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] determining whether access points meet a certain signal strength criteria—provided list of potential access points determined to have met signal strength (or other type of performance characteristic) criteria).
Regarding claim 10, Visuri teaches further comprising: responsive to determining that the second access point is physically co-located with the first access point, adding the second access point to a bypass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection-- provided list of potential access points based on visible access points in immediate vicinity of the UE);
and selecting a roaming destination from the pass list and the bypass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection-- provided list of potential access points based on visible access points in immediate vicinity of the UE).
Regarding claim 11, Visuri teaches the wireless computing device, comprising:
a memory (Figure 3 315);
a communications interface (Figure 3 340);
and a processor (Figure 3 310) configured to:
establish a connection with a wireless network (Fig 1A 170, 150 [0028]-[0029] connection to home network, access point);
perform a roam scan to detect a plurality of access points of the wireless network (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159] [0052]-[0053], [0057] scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, trigger or request information about access points. Scan for available access points and compare connectivity options provided by the visible access points based on rules and policies);
determine that a first access point of the plurality of detected access points satisfies a signal strength criterion (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159] - UE may use its radio system to measure the performance characteristics (RSSI etc.) of one or more of the visible access points. Determination in step 430 of which UEs should be offloaded to alternative network 160 will depend on these results obtained from radio systems (access points);
and select a roaming destination from the first access point and the second access point independent of whether the second access point satisfies the signal strength criterion 4 [0052]-[0053], [0057]-[0058], [0067]-[0070], [0158]-[0159], establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection; expressly discloses that, even when the signal strength of all visible access points is below the applicable threshold, the selection engine nevertheless selects on of the visible access points, namely the access point having the highest signal strength; further teaches that access-point selection may be based on one or more different parameters, including price and terms and conditions, with signal strength identified separately as merely one possible selection parameter).
But Visuri fails to teach determine that a second access point of the plurality of detected access points is physically co-located with the first access point based on an identifier of the second access point transmitted by the first access point.
However, IEEE teaches determine that a second access point of the plurality of detected access points is physically co-located with the first access point based on an identifier of the second access point transmitted by the first access point (Section 9.4.2.45, Fig 11.3a, defines Multiple BSSID element, where a transmitting AP places “Nontranmitted BSSID Profile” subelements in its Beacon/Probe response, Each such profile carries the BSSID (identifier) of another BSS/AP that is part of the same multiple-BSSID set; from that frame (sent by the first AP), a station can learn the identifier of the second AP and infer that it is co-located/affiliated with the first AP (same physical device/radio set)—See “Multiple BSSID element” section and figure titled “Example of Multiple BSSID element carrying Nontransmitted BSSID Profile subelements”).
Visuri teaches techniques for optimized roaming and offloading decisions by evaluating performance characteristics of different sectors or networks, and then sterring a device to a more suitable alternative when the current sector is congested. A POSITA would recognize that Virsuri’s approach relies on accurate detection and evaluation of alternative access points or sectors in order to optimize roaming and load balancing. IEEE through its Multiple BSSID element, teaches that an AP can transmit identifiers of other BSSIDs/APs that are co-located with it. By incorporating this known mechanism into Visuri’s roaming/offloading framework, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve roaming decisions by leveraging the transmitted identifiers to determine when two detected APs are physically co-located. This would reduce the overhead during roam scans, enable more accurate sector load balancing, and avoid redundant handovers, thus yielding the claimed method of detecting co-located access points and selecting a roaming destination accordingly. The combination would have been obvious because both references address optimizing wireless connectivity decisions, and the Multiple BSSID mechanism provides a standardized and efficient way to supply co-location information useful in Visuri’s offloading and roaming context.
Regarding claim 12, Visuri teaches wherein the processor is configured to establish a connection with the wireless network by:
establishing a connection with a current access point of the plurality of access points (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, FIG 1C 160C 160B 170A, [0028]-[0029], [0052]-[0053], [0057] connections to multiple different access points);
and wherein determining that the first access point satisfies the signal strength criterion includes: determining that a difference between a signal strength of the first access point and a signal strength of the current access point exceeds a threshold (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 13, Visuri teaches wherein the processer is configured to determine that the second access point is physically co- located with the first access point by:
obtaining identifying data from the first access point during the roam scan (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points);
and extracting the identifier of the second access point from the identifying data (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data—specific data identifiers unique to each access point, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points);
Regarding claim 14, Visuri teaches wherein the identifying data includes the identifier of the second access point, and an indication that the second access point is co-located with the first access point ((Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138] , [0057] line 5-27, scan frequencies in its environment of visible access points including alternative access points, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points)—obtaining identifying data—specific data identifiers unique to each access point, combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 16, Visuri teaches wherein the processer is configured to determine that the second access point is physically co- located with the first access point by: comparing an identifier of the first access point with the identifier of the second access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points, identifiers), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 17, Visuri teaches wherein the processor is configured to compare the identifiers of the first and second access points by:
determining that a difference between a portion of the identifier of the first access point and a portion of the identifier of the second access point is less than a threshold (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0138], [0057] line 5-27, comparison or determining includes measure the performance characteristics (signal strengths of multiple access points, identifiers), combining this information to make a selection of a connection, this is based on rules and policies like signal strength thresholds (indicating adequate performance and visible or close vicinity access points).
Regarding claim 18, Visuri teaches wherein the portion of the identifier of the first access point includes at least one octet of a media access controller (MAC) address of the first access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, [0138] measurement report may comprise more than one identifier and one or more performance indicators, measurement report may also include network or network element identifiers (access points) within vicinity of the UE within MAC address); and
and wherein the portion of the identifier of the second access point includes at least one corresponding octet of a media access controller (MAC) address of the second access point (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, 132 [0052]-[0053], [0057] line 5-27, [0138] measurement report may comprise more than one identifier and one or more performance indicators, measurement report may also include network or network element identifiers (access points) within vicinity of the UE within MAC address).
Regarding claim 19, Visuri teaches wherein the processor is configured to: responsive to determining that the first access point satisfies the signal strength criterion, add the first access point to a pass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] determining whether access points meet a certain signal strength criteria—provided list of potential access points determined to have met signal strength (or other type of performance characteristic) criteria).
Regarding claim 10, Visuri teaches wherein the processor is configured to: responsive to determining that the second access point is physically co-located with the first access point, add the second access point to a bypass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection-- provided list of potential access points based on visible access points in immediate vicinity of the UE);
and selecting a roaming destination from the pass list and the bypass list (Fig. 1A, 170, 150, 160A, 160B, Fig. 4 [0158]-[0159], [0052]-[0058] establishes new connection, UE may associate communication with the access point supporting the new connection and disassociate the communication with the access point supporting previously existing connection-- provided list of potential access points based on visible access points in immediate vicinity of the UE).
Claims 5 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visuri in view of IEEE, in further view of Bravo et al (DE102020134805) (hereinafter "Bravo").
Regarding claim 5, Visuri and IEEE fails to teach wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element.
However, Bravo teaches wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element. (Fig 1 142, 126 (alternative access points (APs)), Fig 9 900, Fig 11 940 941 943 [0040], [0044] [0046] AP 102 can allow a RNR 142 with one or more user devices; fig 9 shows a reduced neighbor reporting element having a neighbor AP information field containing ID info; when one AP is connected to a ID,…a TBTT information field is a reduced neighbor reporting element with the neighbor-AP-TBTT-offset-subfield, the BSSID parameter belonging to same AP).
Visuri, IEEE, and Bravo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field as offloading wireless devices to other types of access points with usage of reduced neighbor reports information elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the combination of teachings of Visuri, IEEE and Bravo to create a method wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element.
Visuri provides a general method for optimized offloading of wireless divides to alternative wireless networks via access points based on identifying information such as signal strength criteria and proximity based identifiers. IEEE through its Multiple BSSID element, teaches that an AP can transmit identifiers of other BSSIDs/APs that are co-located with it. By incorporating this known mechanism into Visuri’s roaming/offloading framework, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve roaming decisions by leveraging the transmitted identifiers to determine when two detected APs are physically co-located. This would reduce the overhead during roam scans, enable more accurate sector load balancing, and avoid redundant handovers, thus yielding the claimed method of detecting co-located access points and selecting a roaming destination accordingly. The combination would have been obvious because both references address optimizing wireless connectivity decisions, and the Multiple BSSID mechanism provides a standardized and efficient way to supply co-location information useful in Visuri’s offloading and roaming context.
Furthermore, Bravo provides a method and circuit for using reduced neighbor reports (RNR) information elements. Combining the teachings would allow for the method of detecting co-located access points using reduced neighbor reports information element. The motivation to combine both references is to yield more access point options based on preference for roaming by including co-located access points even if they don’t meet signal strength criteria. In short, combining the sources would fix the omission issue of sub-optimal signal strength criteria and offer greater flexibility for UE operation.
Regarding claim 15, Visuri and IEEE fails to teach wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element.
However, Bravo teaches wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element. (Fig 1 142, 126 (alternative access points (APs)), Fig 9 900, Fig 11 940 941 943 [0040], [0044] [0046] AP 102 can allowed a RNR 142 with one or more user devices; fig 9 shows a reduced neighbor reporting element having a neighbor AP information field containing ID info; when one AP is connected to a ID,…a TBTT information field is a reduced neighbor reporting element with the neighbor-AP-TBTT-offset-subfield, the BSSID parameter belonging to same AP).
Visuri, IEEE, and Bravo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field as offloading wireless devices to other types of access points with usage of reduced neighbor reports information elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the combination of teachings of Visuri, IEEE and Bravo to create a method wherein the identifying data includes a reduced neighbor report (RNR) information element.
Visuri provides a general method for optimized offloading of wireless divides to alternative wireless networks via access points based on identifying information such as signal strength criteria and proximity based identifiers. IEEE through its Multiple BSSID element, teaches that an AP can transmit identifiers of other BSSIDs/APs that are co-located with it. By incorporating this known mechanism into Visuri’s roaming/offloading framework, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve roaming decisions by leveraging the transmitted identifiers to determine when two detected APs are physically co-located. This would reduce the overhead during roam scans, enable more accurate sector load balancing, and avoid redundant handovers, thus yielding the claimed method of detecting co-located access points and selecting a roaming destination accordingly. The combination would have been obvious because both references address optimizing wireless connectivity decisions, and the Multiple BSSID mechanism provides a standardized and efficient way to supply co-location information useful in Visuri’s offloading and roaming context.
Furthermore, Bravo provides a method and circuit for using reduced neighbor reports (RNR) information elements. Combining the teachings would allow for the method of detecting co-located access points using reduced neighbor reports information element. The motivation to combine both references is to yield more access point options based on preference for roaming by including co-located access points even if they don’t meet signal strength criteria. In short, combining the sources would fix the omission issue of sub-optimal signal strength criteria and offer greater flexibility for UE operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant characterizes Visuri as requiring candidate access points that fail the signal-strength criterion to be discarded, but Visuri expressly teaches otherwise. Visuri explains that its selection engine evaluates visible access points using configurable rules and policies and may consider signal strength and data speed among other characteristics. Significantly, VIsuri teaches that when the performance characteristic, such as signal strength, is below the threshold for all visible access points, the selection engine may nevertheless select the access point having the highest signal strength. Thus, Visuri does not treat the signal-strength threshold as an absolute prerequisite to selection.
Visuri further teaches that signal strength is only one of numerous parameters that may be considered when selecting a connection. The selection engine may consider price, network load. Signal quality, security, throughput, reliability, latency, jitter, and application-specific bandwidth requirements, and may also act based on special instructions from a network operator, end user, or access-point operator. Visuri therefore expressly contemplates selecting among available connections based on broader network-selection considerations rather than requiring signal strength along to control the decision.
Visuri also teaches adjusting or loosening its selection criteria when the currently applied criteria do not produce an appropriate offload opportunity. Specifically, [0147] provides that when no offload opportunity satisfies the current criteria while the home network remains busy, the selection criteria may be “adjust[ed] (e.g. loosen[ed])” and the process repeated until an appropriate balance is reached. This teaching directly undermines Applicant’s contention that a candidate failing an initial signal-strength criterion would necessarily by eliminated from further consideration.
IEEE supplies the additional relationship between the first and second access points by teaching the Multiple BSSID framework, including the reference BSSID and associated nontransmitted BSSID profiles within the same Multiple BSSID set. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have found it obvious to use IEEE’s identification of related BSSIDs within Visuri’s flexible selection framework so that an associated BSSID remains eligible for selection even where it does not independently satisfy an otherwise applicable signal-strength threshold. The modification does not alter Visuri’s fundamental operation; rather, it applied Visuri’s expressly flexible, multi-factor selection logic to the related access points identified by IEEE. Accordingly, the combination teaches or suggests selecting a roaming destination from the first and second access points independent of whether the second access points satisfies the signal-strength in amended claims 1 & 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sambhwani et al (US12375887B2) discloses systems and methods for user equipment group management and control
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights