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 Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and claims filed on June 24, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 16-17, and 25-46 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 16-17, 25-26, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karimli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0034832 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2013/0188628 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karimli et al. teach an unlicensed channel(s) exclusion enforcement method (Fig(s).3-4), comprising:
at an access point (AP), in response to an initialization of the AP, retrieving an exclusion configuration from provider equipment (PE) communicatively coupled thereto via a predefined communications channel (Fig(s).3 @ 304, 306 and 4 @ 402),
at the AP, configuring unlicensed channel usage of the AP in accordance with the exclusion configuration (Fig(s).3 @ 314 and 4 @ 408, 410); and
at the AP, configuring unlicensed channel usage of the AP in accordance with an updated exclusion configuration received from the PE. (Fig(s).3 @ 320 and 4 @ 412)
However, Karimli et al. fail to explicitly teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion;
Lee et al. teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion (read as an exclusion list (Fig(s).9-10; Table I, page 9; Paragraph [0146]) For example, “The probe request frame according to an embodiment of the present invention may include an inclusion list and an exclusion list or may not include them.”(Paragraph [0146]) Also, “a condition for minutely confining a set of APs (or STAs) which should not respond may be designated together with the BSSID, SSID, SSID List, HESSID, MESHID, Network ID, and Network ID List information in the exclusion list.”(Paragraph [0144]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the exclusion list as taught by Lee et al. with the computing devices as taught by Karimli et al. for the purpose of enhancing unlicensed channel selection by devices in a WLAN.
Regarding claim 16, Karimli et al. teach an access point (AP) apparatus (Fig.1 @ 120 and 6 @ 500) configured to provide network services to mobile devices connected thereto using unlicensed spectrum shared with incumbent users (Fig(s).1 and 6 @ 606),
the AP apparatus (Fig.1 @ 120 and 6 @ 500) comprising a processor (Fig.6 @ 602) configured to execute instructions (Fig.6 @ 616) stored within a tangible computer readable medium (Fig.6 @ 604) to perform an unlicensed channel exclusion enforcement method (Fig(s).3-4), the method (Fig(s).3-4) comprising:
in response to an initialization of the AP, retrieving an exclusion configuration from provider equipment (PE) communicatively coupled thereto via a predefined communications channel (Fig(s).3 @ 304, 306 and 4 @ 402),
configuring unlicensed channel usage of the AP in accordance with the exclusion configuration (Fig(s).3 @ 314 and 4 @ 408, 410); and
configuring unlicensed channel usage of the AP in accordance with an updated exclusion configuration received from the PE. (Fig(s).3 @ 320 and 4 @ 412)
However, Karimli et al. fail to explicitly teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion;
Lee et al. teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion (read as an exclusion list (Fig(s).9-10; Table I, page 9; Paragraph [0146]) For example, “The probe request frame according to an embodiment of the present invention may include an inclusion list and an exclusion list or may not include them.”(Paragraph [0146]) Also, “a condition for minutely confining a set of APs (or STAs) which should not respond may be designated together with the BSSID, SSID, SSID List, HESSID, MESHID, Network ID, and Network ID List information in the exclusion list.”(Paragraph [0144]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the exclusion list as taught by Lee et al. with the computing devices as taught by Karimli et al. for the purpose of enhancing unlicensed channel selection by devices in a WLAN.
Regarding claim 25, Karimli et al. teach a computer-implemented unlicensed channel(s) exclusion enforcement method (Fig(s).3-4 and 6 @ 616), in a network manager managing access points (APs) (Fig(s).2 @ 116 and 6 @ 600) configured to use unlicensed spectrum, the method (Fig(s).3-4) comprising:
comparing managed AP locations with locations identified in a restricted channels database to identify thereby APs impacted by current or scheduled priority use of the unlicensed spectrum (Fig.3 @ 302); and
updating exclusion configurations of each of the impacted APs (Fig.3 @ 318),
each of the APs being configured to retrieve from the network manager a respective exclusion configuration via a predefined communications channel in response to an initialization of the AP (Fig(s).1 @ 116 and 2 @ 116);
each of the APs being configured to use unlicensed spectrum in accordance with the respective exclusion configuration. (Fig(s).1-4 and 6)
However, Karimli et al. fail to explicitly teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion;
Lee et al. teach the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion (read as an exclusion list (Fig(s).9-10; Table I, page 9; Paragraph [0146]) For example, “The probe request frame according to an embodiment of the present invention may include an inclusion list and an exclusion list or may not include them.”(Paragraph [0146]) Also, “a condition for minutely confining a set of APs (or STAs) which should not respond may be designated together with the BSSID, SSID, SSID List, HESSID, MESHID, Network ID, and Network ID List information in the exclusion list.”(Paragraph [0144]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the exclusion list as taught by Lee et al. with the computing devices as taught by Karimli et al. for the purpose of enhancing unlicensed channel selection by devices in a WLAN.
Regarding claims 3, 17, and 26, and as applied to claims 1, 16, and 25 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method and an apparatus (Fig(s).1-4 and 6) wherein exclusion configurations of impacted APs are updated in accordance with a pushed update responsive to detection of respective channel interference or congestion above a threshold level. (read as a trigger condition (Fig.3 @ 318))
Regarding claim 27, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration is generated by network management equipment after correlating the detected channel interference or congestion with a geographic location of the AP. (Fig.3 @ 302, 304)
Regarding claim 28, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration overrides a previously stored exclusion configuration at the AP. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 29, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) further comprising the AP continuing provision of network services on allowed channels while enforcing the pushed exclusion configuration. (Fig.3 @ 312)
Regarding claim 30, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration is enforced without requiring reinitialization of the AP. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 31, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) wherein the detection of the channel interference or congestion comprises monitoring channel utilization metrics exceeding a threshold. (Fig.3 @ 306, 314)
Regarding claim 32, and as applied to claim 3 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig.3 @ 300) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration is generated after comparing detected channel interference or congestion to a predefined threshold associated with incumbent or priority user protection requirements. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 33, and as applied to claim 1 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) wherein during enforcement of the pushed exclusion configuration the access point communicates via a predefined safe channel. (Fig.3 @ 314, and 320)
Regarding claim 34, and as applied to claim 1 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) further comprising restoring use of a previously restricted unlicensed channel after expiration of the pushed exclusion configuration. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 35, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the processor is further configured to enforce the pushed exclusion configuration at the AP apparatus even if the AP apparatus is subject to a soft reset or power cycling off and back on. (Fig(s).3 @ 318 and 6 @ 602, 616)
Regarding claim 36, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the processor is further configured to modify unlicensed channel usage in real time in accordance with the pushed exclusion configuration. (Fig(s).3 @ 318 and 6 @ 602, 616)
Regarding claim 37, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the AP apparatus enforces the pushed exclusion configuration while maintaining active user sessions. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 38, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the processor is further configured to replace a prior exclusion configuration with the pushed exclusion configuration. (Fig(s).3 @ 318 and 6 @ 602, 616)
Regarding claim 39, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the processor is further configured to retrieve and enforce the pushed exclusion configuration in response to a reboot of the access point. (Fig.6 @ 602, 616)
Regarding claim 40, and as applied to claim 17 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach an apparatus (Fig(s).1-2 and 6) wherein the processor is further configured to maintain enforcement of the pushed exclusion configuration during normal operation of the AP apparatus until receipt of a subsequent pushed exclusion configuration. (Fig.6 @ 602, 616)
Regarding claim 41, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) wherein the updating of the exclusion configurations comprises determining an extent of impact of the detected channel interference or congestion on unlicensed spectrum usage and generating the pushed exclusion configuration based on the determined extent. (Fig.3 @ 306, 318)
Regarding claim 42, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) further comprising detecting channel interference or congestion based on aggregated channel condition data received from multiple access points. (Fig.4 @ 402)
Regarding claim 43, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) further comprising identifying a plurality of impacted access points and pushing the updated exclusion configuration to each of the plurality of impacted access points. (Fig.3 @ 318)
Regarding claim 44, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration supersedes a prior exclusion configuration stored at the impacted access points. (Fig.3 @ 318)
Regarding claim 45, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration is generated based on detection of interference or congestion reported by one or more access points. (Fig.3 @ 302)
Regarding claim 46, and as applied to claim 26 above, Karimli et al., as modified by Lee et al., teach a method (Fig(s).3-4) wherein the pushed exclusion configuration is automatically propagated to geographically relevant access points.(Fig.3 @ 302)
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, see Page 7 states “It follows that Lee's exclusion list does not define "an unlicensed spectrum portion."” Also, the Applicant argues, see Page 7 states “Equally important, Lee's exclusion list does not define "a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion."” Also, the Applicant argues, see Page 7 states “Neither reference - and no combination of them - yields a single exclusion configuration, retrieved from provider equipment, that pairs a defined unlicensed spectrum portion with a defined time period during which the AP may not use that portion.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Karimli et al. teach “The access point may perform a scan of the unlicensed spectrum that excludes the channel used by the at least one neighboring access point and select the operating channel based at least partly on the scan.” (Fig(s).3-4; Abstract)
Lee et al. teach an exclusion list comprising a list of other network identifier(s) (Fig.7; Paragraph(s) [0121]-[0122]) For example, Lee et al. teach “The Other Network identifier List field indicating a network identification value may be a list of values identifying networks such as a roaming consortium organization identifier, a roaming consortium element, or the like, defined in the IEEE 802.11u technology.” (Paragraph [0122]) Also, it is well known that IEEE 8021.11u technology may operate on unlicensed spectrum (e.g.: 2.4 GHz band, 5 GHz band, or 6 GHz band). Further, the examiner equates Lee et al. exclusion list comprising of other Network identifiers with applicant’s “the exclusion configuration defining an unlicensed spectrum portion and a time period during which the AP may not use the defined unlicensed spectrum portion” concept.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the exclusion list as taught by Lee et al. with the computing devices as taught by Karimli et al. for the purpose of enhancing unlicensed channel selection by devices in a WLAN.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Pragada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0241265 A1) teach “In an unlicensed system, there may be may be transmissions that may be outside the control of the licensed system since users of the unlicensed spectrum may be able to transmit at any time. To account for possible interference, a device that may use the unlicensed spectrum may use the channel when the device senses that there is little interference.”(Paragraph [0080]) Also, Pragada et al. teach “The mapping of each data block to a radio transmission resource may be based on a quality of service parameter such that guaranteed bit rate traffic may be prevented from being routed to a supplementary carrier.”(Paragraph [0148]) Also, Pragada et al. teach “The radio transmission resources may include a transport channel, a component carrier, a primary carrier, a supplemental carrier, or the like. The supplemental carrier may be in a license exempt spectrum. The component carrier preference data may include a component carrier preference list for at least one logical channel, and/or a component carrier exclusion list for at least one logical channel.”(Paragraph [0149])
Yanovsky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 20210006600 A1) teach “The exclusion list identifies host devices that do not have to comply with the policy definition corresponding to the exclusion list. The exclusion list may identify host devices by machine names, MAC addresses, IP addresses, etc.”(Paragraph [0053])
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights