DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 17, and 19 have been amended; Claim 2 has been canceled; Claims 21 has been added. Claims 1, and 3-21 are subject to examination.
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 .
Acknowledgement is made to the Applicant’s amendment to claims 13 to obviate the previous objection to the specification. The previous objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patanapongpibul et al. (Patanapongpibul hereafter) (US 2012/0300759 A1) in view of Ho et al. (Ho hereafter) (US 2017/0111854 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Patanapongpibul teaches, a device (Patanapongpibul; Multi-band AP of Fig. 1), comprising:
a processing system including a processor; (Patanapongpibul; Multi-band AP of Fig. 1) and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system (Patanapongpibul; Multi-band AP of Fig. 1), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
obtaining first data associated with a communication service that is to be provisioned to a communication device; (Patanapongpibul; The STA then makes a query on band 1 using the access network query protocol (ANQP). This involves the transmission from the STA to the multi-band AP of a generic advertisement service (GAS) message using ANQP, Par. 0034)
processing the first data to identify a first Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) frequency band that is to be utilized as part of the communication service; (Patanapongpibul; The multi-band AP then responds with a GAS/ANQP message that includes an indication of operating class. The operating class identifies the frequency bands that the multi-band AP supports for access, Par. 0035) and
generating a first command that directs the communication device to utilize the first Wi- Fi frequency band for obtaining a first portion of the communication service, (Patanapongpibul; The multi-band AP then responds with a GAS/ANQP message that includes an indication of operating class. The operating class identifies the frequency bands that the multi-band AP supports for access, Par. 0035) wherein the first data identifies a type of the communication service, (Patanapongpibul; it may be used in conjunction with video or high priority services. Data traffic is initiated using 5 GHz between an AP and a wireless station because the expected performances are better. But a new video service delivery is required between the AP and the STA. The quality of service of this video traffic is affected by contention, Par. 0052-0057)
Although Patanapongpibul teaches, load balancing between bands based on video traffic (Patanapongpibul; 0057), Patanapongpibul does not explicitly teach,
wherein the type of the communication service pertains to a voice call, streaming audio, email, text messaging, online gaming, and social media activity,
However, Ho teaches,
wherein the type of the communication service pertains to a voice call, streaming audio, email, text messaging, online gaming, and social media activity. (Ho; the root AP 110A may classify traffic flows as one of the following local traffic types: real-time traffic (e.g., gaming traffic or voice traffic), streaming traffic (e.g., video traffic), general traffic, and bulk traffic, Par. 0038)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patanapongpibul to include the above cited limitations as taught by Ho in order to allow the AP to make band steering decisions based on a range of different levels of network services (Ho; Par. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 3, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the type of the communication service pertains to streaming video. (Patanapongpibul; video traffic stream, Par. 0057)
Regarding claim 4, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the type of the communication service is based on an identification of an application executed by the communication device. (Ho; Traffic characteristics may include a flow's QoS and application type, Par. 0037)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patanapongpibul to include the above cited limitations as taught by Ho in order to allow the AP to make band steering decisions based on a range of different levels of network services (Ho; Par. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 5, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the processing of the first data identifies a second Wi-Fi frequency band that is to be utilized as part of the communication service, the second Wi-Fi frequency band being different from the first Wi-Fi frequency band. (Patanapongpibul; Here, a station wishes to join the AP. It has a video traffic stream and a data traffic stream. For multiple streams on various STAs, the AT wants to reserve 5 GHz for video and 2.4 GHz for data. The AP can then switch the video stream to use 5 GHz and the data traffic can be streamed using 2.4 GHz.)
Regarding claim 6, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 5,
wherein the first command directs the communication device to utilize the second Wi-Fi frequency band for obtaining a second portion of the communication service. (Patanapongpibul; Here, a station wishes to join the AP. It has a video traffic stream and a data traffic stream. For multiple streams on various STAs, the AT wants to reserve 5 GHz for video and 2.4 GHz for data. The AP can then switch the video stream to use 5 GHz and the data traffic can be streamed using 2.4 GHz.)
Regarding claim 7, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 6,
wherein the communication device obtains the first portion of the communication service and the second portion of the communication service concurrently. (Patanapongpibul; Here, a station wishes to join the AP. It has a video traffic stream and a data traffic stream. For multiple streams on various STAs, the AT wants to reserve 5 GHz for video and 2.4 GHz for data. The AP can then switch the video stream to use 5 GHz and the data traffic can be streamed using 2.4 GHz.)
Regarding claim 8, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 6,
wherein the communication device obtains the second portion of the communication service subsequent to obtaining the first portion of the communication service. (Patanapongpibul; it may be used in conjunction with video or high priority services. Data traffic is initiated using 5 GHz between an AP and a wireless station because the expected performances are better. But a new video service delivery is required between the AP and the STA. The quality of service of this video traffic is affected by contention, Par. 0052…. To solve the problem, the AP should be able to switch data traffic between AP and STA connected in 5 GHz to the 2.4 GHz, to free the 5 GHz channel for video, Par. 0053)
Regarding claim 9, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating a second command that directs the communication device to utilize the second Wi-Fi frequency band for obtaining a second portion of the communication service. (Patanapongpibul; it may be used in conjunction with video or high priority services. Data traffic is initiated using 5 GHz between an AP and a wireless station because the expected performances are better. But a new video service delivery is required between the AP and the STA. The quality of service of this video traffic is affected by contention, Par. 0052…. To solve the problem, the AP should be able to switch data traffic between AP and STA connected in 5 GHz to the 2.4 GHz, to free the 5 GHz channel for video, Par. 0053)
Regarding claim 10, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise:
deactivating the first Wi-Fi frequency band subsequent to issuing the second command to the communication device. (Patanapongpibul; it may be used in conjunction with video or high priority services. Data traffic is initiated using 5 GHz between an AP and a wireless station because the expected performances are better. But a new video service delivery is required between the AP and the STA. The quality of service of this video traffic is affected by contention, Par. 0052…. To solve the problem, the AP should be able to switch data traffic between AP and STA connected in 5 GHz to the 2.4 GHz, to free the 5 GHz channel for video, Par. 0053)
Regarding claim 11, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
issuing the first command to the communication device and a second communication device; (Patanapongpibul; A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band., Par. 0054) and
issuing a second command to a third communication device that instructs the third communication device to utilize a second Wi-Fi frequency band as part of the third communication device obtaining the first portion of the communication service, a first portion of a second communication service, or a combination thereof, the second Wi-Fi frequency band being different from the first Wi-Fi frequency band. (Patanapongpibul; The multi-band AP then responds with a GAS/ANQP message that includes an indication of operating class. The operating class identifies the frequency bands that the multi-band AP supports for access, Par. 0035) [The Examiner contends that the issuing of the second command to a third communication device is merely the AP providing services to other STAs, See Par. 0054]
Regarding claim 12, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the first data identifies a first location of the communication device and a second location of a second communication device that obtains the communication service, a second communication service, or a combination thereof. (Patanapongpibul; Providing an exact channel frequency may not be practical or optimal, because the AP Controller may not know the exact location of the STA and the APs closest to the STA. However, APs may be able to assess the interference on channels which are part of the advertised frequency band, in order to decide on which channel to operate for those bands., Par. 0056) [The Examiner contends that although exact location is not known, the first data identifies the STAs and uses interference to help decide on the channel. By the STA connecting to the APs general information about location is known, at minimum that the STA is within wireless access distance of the AP.]
Regarding claim 13, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the first data identifies an amount of traffic connected via Wi-Fi (Patanapongpibul; Par. 0052-0053; video traffic), and wherein the operations further comprise:
selecting the first Wi-Fi frequency band for providing the communication service to the communication device based on a capacity of the first Wi-Fi frequency band relative to the amount of traffic. (Patanapongpibul; Par. 0054; load balancing)
Regarding claim 15, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the communication device includes a mobile device. (Patanapongpibul; mobile devices; Par. 0058)
Regarding claim 16, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 1,
wherein the communication device includes a Wi-Fi extender. (Ho; range extenders; Par. 0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patanapongpibul to include the above cited limitations as taught by Ho in order to allow the AP to make band steering decisions based on a range of different levels of network services (Ho; Par. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 17, Patanapongpibul teaches, a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
identifying video traffic by a communication device in conjunction with a communication service, resulting in a first identification; (Patanapongpibul; it may be used in conjunction with video or high priority services. Data traffic is initiated using 5 GHz between an AP and a wireless station because the expected performances are better. But a new video service delivery is required between the AP and the STA. The quality of service of this video traffic is affected by contention, Par. 0052)
identifying a first amount of traffic accommodated by a first Wireless Fidelity (Wi- Fi) frequency band relative to a first capacity of the first Wi-Fi frequency band, resulting in a second identification; (Patanapongpibul; Another example concerns load balancing between frequency bands. A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band. In a second scenario, the AP wants to reserve one band for a dedicated service that requires eligibility. The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect, Par. 0054)
identifying a second amount of traffic accommodated by a second Wi-Fi frequency band that is different from the first Wi-Fi frequency band relative to a second capacity of the second Wi-Fi frequency band, resulting in a third identification; (Patanapongpibul; Another example concerns load balancing between frequency bands. A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band. In a second scenario, the AP wants to reserve one band for a dedicated service that requires eligibility. The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect, Par. 0054)
based on the first identification, the second identification, and the third identification, selecting the first Wi-Fi frequency band, the second Wi-Fi frequency band, a third Wi-Fi frequency band, or any combination thereof, to provide a first portion of the communication service, resulting in a first selection; (Patanapongpibul; Another example concerns load balancing between frequency bands. A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band. In a second scenario, the AP wants to reserve one band for a dedicated service that requires eligibility. The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect, Par. 0054) and
providing the first portion of the communication service to the communication device in accordance with the first selection. (Patanapongpibul; The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect., Par. 0054)
Although, Patanapongpibul teaches a first identification being video traffic stream, Patanapongpibul does not explicitly teach,
identifying an application executed by a communication device;
However, Ho teaches,
identifying an application executed by a communication device; (Ho; Traffic characteristics may include a flow's QoS and application type, Par. 0037)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patanapongpibul to include the above cited limitations as taught by Ho in order to allow the AP to make band steering decisions based on a range of different levels of network services (Ho; Par. 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 18, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise:
subsequent to the providing of the first portion of the communication service to the communication device, selecting the first Wi-Fi frequency band, the second Wi-Fi frequency band, the third Wi-Fi frequency band, or any combination thereof, to provide a second portion of the communication service, resulting in a second selection that is different from the first selection; (Patanapongpibul; Another example concerns load balancing between frequency bands. A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band. In a second scenario, the AP wants to reserve one band for a dedicated service that requires eligibility. The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect, Par. 0054) and
providing the second portion of the communication service to the communication device in accordance with the second selection. (Patanapongpibul; The AP may take the decision to indicate the appropriate band to recommend the STA to connect., Par. 0054)
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patanapongpibul - Ho in view of Dong (US 2024/0349368 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Patanapongpibul – Ho teaches, the device of claim 13,
wherein the selecting comprises selecting the first Wi- Fi frequency band from a plurality of Wi-Fi frequency bands (Patanapongpibul; Par. 0052-0054), wherein the plurality of Wi-Fi frequency bands comprises: a nominal 2.4GHz frequency band, a nominal 5GHz frequency band, (Patanapongpibul; Par. 0052-0054).
Patanapongpibul – Ho fails to explicitly teach,
a nominal 6GHz frequency band.
However, Dong teaches,
a nominal 6GHz frequency band. (Dong; the link 1 to link 3 may be multiple links at different frequencies, e.g. links at 2.4 GHz, 5 GHZ, and 6 GHZ, Par. 0030)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Patanapongpibul - Ho to include the above cited limitations as taught by Dong in order to allow coordination between multiple frequency bands (Dong; Par. 0004).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patanapongpibul in view of Shukla (US 11,706,706 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Patanapongpibul teaches, a method, comprising:
determining, by a processing system including a processor, that a first communication session involving a client device and utilizing a first Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) frequency band has concluded; (Patanapongpibul; A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band., Par. 0054) [The Examiner contends that moving an existing station on to a less congested band means a communication session has concluded.]
selecting, by the processing system and a second Wi-Fi frequency band that is different from the first Wi-Fi frequency band for a second communication session involving the client device; (Patanapongpibul; Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band., Par. 0054) [The Examiner contends that moving the existing station to a less congested band is the selection of a different frequency] and
based on the determining and the selecting, causing, by the processing system, the second communication session involving the client device to utilize the second Wi-Fi frequency band. (Patanapongpibul; Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band., Par. 0054)
Patanapongpibul fails to explicitly teach,
based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or a combination thereof,
However, Shukla teaches,
based on a use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or a combination thereof, (Shukla; Col 4, Lines 34-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Patanapongpibul to include the above cited limitations as taught by Shukla in order for historical data to be considered in band steering selections (Shukla; Col 4, Lines 34-46).
Regarding claim 20, Patanapongpibul – Shukla teaches, the method of claim 19,
wherein the determining comprises a determination that the first communication session utilizes a third Wi-Fi frequency band concurrently with the first Wi-Fi frequency band, the third Wi-Fi frequency band being different from the second Wi- Fi frequency band. (Patanapongpibul; A station wishes to join the AP. The 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands are suitable in term of Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). In a first scenario, several stations are already connected on one band (2.4 or 5 GHz). Thus, the AP can take the decision to connect a new station on the less crowded band or moves an existing station on to the less congested band., Par. 0054)
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 Noel R Beharry whose telephone number is (571)270-5630. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
NOEL R. BEHARRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416