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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/20/2026 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-4, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar et al. (2021/0227547), hereinafter Chitrakar in view of and Huang et al (2023/0007571).
Re. Claim 1, Chitrakar teaches an access point for an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") 802.11 wireless local area network (¶0044 - Consider an example embodiment in which the wireless network is a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) operating per IEEE 802.11 that improves in peak throughput and multi-band transmission), comprising: an interface circuit configured to communicate with an client device (¶0004 - the techniques disclosed here feature a multi-band communication apparatus that includes a transmitter and a receiver) , and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use in conjunction with an access point (Fig. 22, ¶0005 - It should be noted that general or specific embodiments may be implemented as a system, a method, an integrated circuit, a computer program, a storage medium, or any selective combination thereof), which performs a method comprising receiving a packet or a frame associated with the client device (¶0004 - The receiver, which in operation, receives, in the wireless network, from the multi-band communication devices, frames on the frequency band that include actions related to the frequency band and to the at least one other frequency band in which the multi-band communication apparatus receives); and determining whether the client device has multi-band capability based at least in part on information included in the packet or the frame (Fig. 6, ¶0013 - FIG. 6 is a frame for authenticating and/or associating multi-band STAs across multiple different frequency bands), and information is stored in memory in the access point (Fig. 11, ¶0018 - FIG. 11 shows an element used to authenticate and/or associate a multi-band STA with an multi-band AP) wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device (Figs. 3, 11 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on, & ¶0079 - FIG. 11 shows an element 1100 used to authenticate and/or associate a multi-band STA with a multi-band AP. By way of example, the element 110 may be the Multi-band element 300 and includes Element ID, Length, Multi-band Control, Band ID, Operating Class, Channel Number (not shown), BSSID (not shown), Beacon Interval (not shown), TSF Offset (not shown), Multi-band Connection Capability, FST Session Timeout, STA MAC Address (Optional), Pairwise Cipher Suite Count (Optional), Pairwise Cipher Suite List (Optional®, and Optional Elements.), wherein determining whether the client device has multi-band capability comprises determining that the client device can operate in multiple of a 2.4 GHz frequency band, a 5 GHz frequency band and a 6 GHz frequency band of the IEEE WLAN (¶0041 - the multi-band communication device 110 is shown as an AP, and the multi-band communication devices 120A and 120B are shown as non-AP stations (STAs) STA1 and STA2. The multiple different frequency bands include, but are not limited to, 6 GHz, 5 GHz, and 2.4 GHz).
Yet, Chitrakar does not expressly teach wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class.
However, Huang explicitly teaches wherein the information stored in memory comprising one or more predefined channels in one or more predefined bands of frequencies specified by the operating class (¶0289 - the reserved field in the Control field may include indication information, for example, operating class present (OCP), used to indicate whether the EHT operation element carries an Operating Class field, or understandably, used to indicate whether the two channels are located in different frequency bands. For example, when OCP=1, it indicates that the EHT operation element carries the Operating Class field, that is, the two channels are located in different frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of Chitrakar. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Huang teaches where there are one or more channels within a band specified by the operating class (Huang, ¶0289). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 3 and 21, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claims 1 and 18.
Additionally, Chitrakar teaches wherein the determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on bands of frequencies associated with the operating class (¶0055 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band).
Re. Claim 4, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Chitrakar teaches wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame, and the association request frame comprises an operating classes information element that specifies the operating class (Fig. 11 & ¶0079 - An element 1100 used to authenticate and/or associate a multi-band STA with a multi-band AP. By way of example, the element 110 may be the Multi-band element 300 and includes… Operating Class).
Re. Claims 22, Chitrakar and Huang teach Claims 1 and 27.
Additionally, Chitrakar further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is not based on a media access control (MAC) address of the client device that is included in the packet or the frame (Fig. 3, ¶0052 - FIG. 3 is an element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes one or more of Element ID, Length, Multi-band Control, Band ID, Operating Class, Channel Number, Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), Beacon Interval, TSF Offset, Multi-band Connection Capability, Fast Session Transfer (FST) Session Timeout, STA MAC Address, Pairwise Cipher Suite Count, Pairwise Cipher Suite List, and Option Sub-elements. Examiner interprets the claim language presented to be exemplary of a scenario in which the MAC is not used and here, Chitrakar provides several alternatives and states that one or more may be selected. As such, Chitrakar in fact discloses an alternative in which multi-band capability is ascertained without using the MAC).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Huang, and Kannan et al. (2022/0182909), hereinafter Kannan.
Re. Claim 6, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Chitrakar teaches determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Yet, the combination of Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the determination is based at least in part on a predefined or predetermined band capability of the model.
However, Kannan explicitly teaches wherein the determination is based at least in part on a predefined or predetermined band capability of the model (¶0044 - The profile information may include:... a type or model of electronic device 112-1. Additionally, Examiner interprets that the profile information including the model type of the device to be predetermined, as the model type of the device is non-transmutable and would be provided to the device before this request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Chitrakar and Huang. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Kannan provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by the predetermined model of the device (Kannan ¶0044). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 7, Chitrakar, Huang and Kannan teach Claim 5.
Yet, the combination of Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame and the association request frame comprises second information specifying the model.
However, Kannan explicitly teaches wherein the packet or the frame comprises an association request frame (¶0031 - This wireless communication can comprise transmitting advertisements on wireless channels to enable access points 110 and/or electronic devices 112 to make initial contact or detect each other, followed by exchanging subsequent data/management frames (such as association requests and responses) to establish a connection), and the association request frame comprises second information specifying the model (¶0044 - The profile information may include:... a type or model of electronic device 112-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Kannan provides that provides that the multi-band capacity can be determined by a request frame which contains the model of the device (Kannan ¶0031, ¶0044). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Huang and Calcev, George (2016/0073316), hereinafter Calcev.
Re. Claim 9, Chitrakar, and Huang teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Chitrakar teaches determining that the electronic device has the multi-band capability (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Yet, the combination of Chitrakar and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the capacity is based at least in part on a vendor of the electronic device.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the capacity is based at least in part on a vendor of the electronic device (¶0034 - The vendor specific element may include an element ID, a length, an organization identifier, and a vendor-specific content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Calcev to the teaching of Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Calcev teaches that vendor specific information may include a vendor identifier (Calcev ¶0034). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re Claim 12, Chitrakar, Huang, and Calcev teach Claim 9
Additionally, Chitrakar further teaches a packet or the frame comprises an association request frame (¶0059 - The STA 502 then transmits an Association Request frame 530 to the AP 504 on the 5 GHz band requesting the AP 504 to associate the STA on the 5 GHz band as well as the 2.4 GHz and the 6 GHz bands).
Yet, the combination of Chitrakar, and Huang does not expressly teach wherein the association request frame comprises an organizationally unique identifier information element specifying the vendor.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the association request frame comprises an organizationally unique identifier information element specifying the vendor (¶0034 - The vendor specific element may include an element ID, a length, an organization identifier, and a vendor-specific content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Calcev to the teaching of Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Calcev teaches that vendor specific information may include a vendor identifier (Calcev ¶0034). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re Claims 14, Chitrakar, and Huang teach Claims 1, 15, and 18.
Yet, the combination of Chitrakar, and Huang does not teach expressly teach wherein the operations comprise selectively providing a transition recommendation addressed to the electronic device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability.
However, Calcev explicitly teaches wherein the operations comprise selectively providing a transition recommendation addressed to the electronic device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability (¶0039 - The AP may request that a STA transition to a different BSS… The BSS transition management request frame includes… an MBO cellular data link request… and an MBO reason code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Calcev to the teaching of Chitrakar, and Huang. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability and subsequent as Calcev teaches where a transition recommendation is sent to the device based on the capability determined (Calcev ¶0039). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Kannan.
Re. Claim 23, the independent claims contain largely the same limitations as disclosed in Claim 1. As such, Claim 23 is rejected under much of the same reasoning.
However, Chitrakar does not expressly teach selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band.
Yet, Kannan explicitly teaches selectively providing, by the access point, a transition recommendation addressed to the client device based at least in part on the determined multi-band capability, wherein the transition recommendation includes instructions for the client device to switch from one frequency band to another frequency band (¶0036 - the transition recommendation may recommend that an associated electronic device (such as electronic device 112-1) transition to another one of access point 110 in WLAN 114 or to another channel (such as in a different frequency band, e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz or another band of frequencies) with access point 110-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Chitrakar. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client has multi-band capability via predefined data as Kannan provides a means for switching between frequency bands via an access point (Kannan ¶0036). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 24, Chitrakar and Kannan teach Claim 23.
Chitrakar further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on prior determinations made by the access point with respect to whether the client device had the multi-band capability (¶0037 - This communication includes one or more of authenticating, associating, de-authenticating, and de-associating the multi-band electronic devices with one or more multi-band communication apparatus, such as an AP. Examiner interprets that the AP, when associating the device with the apparatus stores the association for later use).
Re. Claim 25, Chitrakar and Kannan teach Claim 23.
However, Chitrakar does not explicitly teach wherein the transition recommendation may also include instructions for the client device to switch from one channel within a frequency band to another channel within the same frequency band.
Yet, Kannan expressly teaches wherein the transition recommendation may also include instructions for the client device to switch from one channel within a frequency band to another channel within the same frequency band (¶0036 - the transition recommendation may recommend that an associated electronic device (such as electronic device 112-1) transition to another one of access point 110 in WLAN 114 or to another channel (such as in a different frequency band, e.g., 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz or another band of frequencies) with access point 110-3. The inclusion of “such as” in this citation leads Examiner to interpret that the transition to another channel does not require transitioning between frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kannan to the teaching of Chitrakar. The motivation for such would be in order to improve determining whether the client should swap channels within a frequency band as Kannan provides a means for switching between frequency bands via an access point (Kannan ¶0036). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 26, Chitrakar and Kannan teach Claim 23.
Additionally, Chitrakar further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on an operating class of the client device (Fig. 3 & ¶0052 - An element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes… [an] Operating Class, ¶0056 - The Operating Class field and Channel Number field together implicitly identify the frequency band, & ¶0058 - The AP 504 broadcasts a Beacon frame 508 on the 5 GHz band, through which STA 502, currently operating on the 5 GHz band, discovers the multi-band capability of the AP, for example by checking the included multi-band elements 300, and decides to get authenticated on all the frequency bands (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz) on which the AP 504 operates and also decides the frequencies to be associated on).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitrakar in view of Huang and Kannan.
Re. Claim 27, Claim 27 contains a combination of limitations found within Claims 1 and 26 and as such are rejected under the same logic under Chitrakar, Huang and Kannan.
Re. Claim 28, Chitrakar, Huang, and Kannan teach Claim 27.
Additionally, Chitrakar further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is based at least in part on prior determinations made by the access point with respect to whether the client device had the multi-band capability (¶0037 - This communication includes one or more of authenticating, associating, de-authenticating, and de-associating the multi-band electronic devices with one or more multi-band communication apparatus, such as an AP. Examiner interprets that the AP, when associating the device with the apparatus stores the association for later use).
Re. Claim 29, Chitrakar, Huang, and Kannan teach Claim 27.
Additionally, Chitrakar further teaches wherein the determining that the client device has the multi-band capability is not based on a media access control (MAC) address of the client device that is included in the packet or the frame (Fig. 3, ¶0052 - FIG. 3 is an element 300 that advertises multi-band capability. By way of example, the element 300 may be a multi-band element and includes one or more of Element ID, Length, Multi-band Control, Band ID, Operating Class, Channel Number, Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), Beacon Interval, TSF Offset, Multi-band Connection Capability, Fast Session Transfer (FST) Session Timeout, STA MAC Address, Pairwise Cipher Suite Count, Pairwise Cipher Suite List, and Option Sub-elements. Examiner interprets the claim language presented to be exemplary of a scenario in which the MAC is not used and here, Chitrakar provides several alternatives and states that one or more may be selected. As such, Chitrakar in fact discloses an alternative in which multi-band capability is ascertained without using the MAC).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, and 22-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. Applicant’s arguments submitted on 01/13/2026 focus primarily on the validity and applicability of Liu as a means of rejection, including the content found within, the validity of the reference as prior art under In re Bigio, and the ability to combine the references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such, in response to these arguments, Examiner has completely removed Liu from the rejection and has elevated Chitrakar to be the new primary reference. In doing so, Examiner has rendered moot arguments 1 (Pg. 8), 2 (Pg. 9), 3 (Pg. 10), and 5 (Pg. 12).
Argument Four (Pg. 11) has been made against Chitrakar, stating that the provided reference at Fig. 3 element 300 does not disclose receiving information from a client device, rather it shows an access point advertising its own capability. Examiner has provided further context with Fig. 11 and a subsequent paragraph (¶0079 - FIG. 11 shows an element 1100 used to authenticate and/or associate a multi-band STA with a multi-band AP. By way of example, the element 110 may be the Multi-band element 300 and includes Element ID, Length, Multi-band Control, Band ID, Operating Class, Channel Number (not shown), BSSID (not shown), Beacon Interval (not shown), TSF Offset (not shown), Multi-band Connection Capability, FST Session Timeout, STA MAC Address (Optional), Pairwise Cipher Suite Count (Optional), Pairwise Cipher Suite List (Optional®, and Optional Elements.) which further supplements the disclosure cited previously to clarify that the element 300 can be used via the frame disclosed in Fig. 11 to perform the same check for multi-band capability between a STA and an AP using the same structure found in element 300, previously presented for consideration.
Under the above stated grounds of argument, Examiner maintains his rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for independent claims 1, 23, and 27, as well as all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulkarni et al. (2022/0400389) - ¶0050-0053; and
Leung et al. (2017/0235357) - ¶0044.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights