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 amendment filed on February 20, 2026. Claims 1-11 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the blocks in figure 1 lack of descriptive labels. For example, blocks 111 and 112 should be labeled as “AP”, block 121 should be labeled as “Internet”, and block 131 should be labeled as “Data Server”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. If a response to the present Office Action fails to include proper drawing corrections, corrected drawings or arguments therefor, the response can be held NON-RESPONSIVE and/or the application could be ABANDONED since the objections/corrections to the drawings are no longer held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION APPARATUS WITH TWO STATIONS (STAs) THAT ARE CONNECTABLE TO TWO ACCESS POINTS (APs) IN PARALLEL, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 9 of paragraph 0017, replace “is” with --are-- before “essential”; and
On line 3 of paragraph 0020, replace “rooter” with --router-- after “wireless”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification
when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely
perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
detection unit configured to detect … in claim 1;
connection unit configured to establish … in claims 1, 2, and 6;
disconnection unit configured to disconnect … in claim 3;
communication unit configured to perform … in claim 4;
path change unit configured to change … in claims 4 and 5; and
reception unit configured to receive … in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof which for:
detection unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the detection unit described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Detection unit is mentioned on the abstract and paragraphs 0008 and 0038 but no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
connection unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the connection unit described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Connection unit is mentioned on the abstract and paragraph 0008 but no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
disconnection unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the disconnection unit described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Disconnection unit is not
mentioned at all in the specification hence no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
communication unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the communication unit described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Communication unit is not
mentioned at all in the specification hence no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
path change unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the path change unit described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Path change unit is not
mentioned at all in the specification hence no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed; and
reception unit, a review of the specification shows that there is no
corresponding structure for the reception unit described in the specification for the 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Reception unit is not
mentioned at all in the specification hence no specific corresponding structure for it is disclosed;
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s specification discussed a "detection unit" in the abstract and paragraphs 0008 and 0038. However, this paragraph does not describe any structure for a "detection unit".
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Applicant’s specification discussed a "connection unit" in
the abstract and paragraph 0008. However, this paragraph does not describe any structure for a "connection unit".
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose a “disconnection unit”, “communication unit”, “path change unit”, and “reception unit” hence the specification does not describe any structure for these units.
Therefore, the claimed units that are configured to perform the recited functions were
not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 7 and 11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “detection unit”, “connection unit”, “disconnection unit”, “communication unit”, “path change unit”, and “reception unit” in claims 1-6 and 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7 and 11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kephart, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0150454 A1) in view of Ono (JP 2007-295064 A).
Consider claim 1, Kephart et al. disclose a wireless communication apparatus (wireless client 102 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) including at least a first station (STA) (primary interface 104 which could be a wireless radio – figure 1 and paragraphs 0022 and 0025) and a second STA (secondary interface 106 which could be a wireless radio – figure 1 and paragraphs 0022 and 0025), the apparatus being connectable with at least a first access point (AP) (AP1 110 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) and a second AP (AP2 112 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) in parallel (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP when it deems the new connection reliable (paragraph 0023) and the primary interface 104 is coupled to the first access point 110 via a first wireless network connection (IP Connection 1) and the secondary interface 106 is coupled to the second access point 112 via a
second wireless network connection (IP Connection 2) (figure 1 and paragraph 0025)), the
wireless communication apparatus comprising:
a detection unit (soft handover IP stack – figure 2) configured to detect that a quality of communication with the first AP with which a connection is established fulfills a predetermined condition (primary interface 204 connection quality is good? – figure 3 step 206 and paragraph 0034); and
a connection unit (soft handover IP stack and soft handover registration and client management application – figure 2) configured to establish a connection with the second AP using the second STA in a state that a connection with the first AP is established using the first STA (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP -when it deems the new connection reliable (see paragraph 0023), wireless client 102 may be a soft handover WiFi client that may use two WiFi interfaces to make two separate connections to the WiFi infrastructure. The different WiFi interfaces could be two physically different WiFi radios, a single physical WiFi radio that has two virtual WiFi interfaces to the WiFi network, etc. Each WiFi interface could maintain its own connection with separate IP addresses to a WiFi access point (paragraph 0028), and WiFi client 102 includes a primary interface 104 and a secondary interface 106 each having an IP connection to the network infrastructure (which may include access points, network devices, etc.). The WiFi client 102 includes a soft handover IP stack configured to manage transmitting and receiving data packets from the network. The WiFi client 102 includes general applications, which may communicate with the network on an occasional, regular, continuous, etc. basis. The WiFi client 102 also includes a soft handover registration and client management application, which may be configured to control the use of primary and secondary interfaces 104, 106 and handle communication between those interfaces
and general applications (figure 2 and paragraph 0031)).
Although Kephart, Jr. et al. disclose that wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new (i.e., second) AP (paragraph 0023), Kephart, Jr. et al. do not specifically disclose that the connection to the new (i.e., second) AP is in the case where the detection unit detects that a quality of communication with the first AP fulfills the predetermined condition.
However, connecting to a new/second AP based on the quality of communication with a first and currently connected AP fulfilling a predetermined condition (e.g., quality of the connection to the first AP is below a threshold) is well known in the art as evidenced by Ono.
Ono discloses a wireless LAN telephone terminal (figure 1) which is connected to the access point A1 (first access point AP – figure 3) using the 0-system voice communication unit 119 (figure 1) to make a call, and in response to the fact that the call status with the access point A1 deteriorates and the reception sensitivity becomes lower than or equal to the threshold (quality of communication fulfills a predetermined condition), the 1-system voice communication unit 129 (figure 1) is used to search for other access points while maintaining the call, and the link with the access point A2 (second access point AP – figure 3) is set based on the search result (see paragraphs 0044, 0050, and 0095-0098 which respectively corresponds to page 11 third paragraph, page 12 fourth full paragraph, and page 22 third paragraph – page 23 first paragraph of the attached machine translation of the document).
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 establish a connection with a second access point when the quality of communication with a first connected access point deteriorates as disclosed
by Ono in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al. in order to managed seamless link
failover between access points (see, for example, the abstract of Kephart, Jr. et al.).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Kephart, Jr. et al. also disclose that the connection unit (soft handover IP stack and soft handover registration and client management application – figure 2) establishes a connection with the second AP (as a connectable AP) using the second STA (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP -when it deems the new connection reliable (paragraph 0023)).
However, Kephart, Jr. et al. do not specifically disclose that connection is in a case where a quality of communication with the connectable AP using the second STA is higher than the quality of the communication with the first AP.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono also discloses that when the communication status related to the second link at the access point A2 (connectable AP) is better than that of the first link at the current access point A1, the terminal makes a call in the session corresponding to the second link (see paragraphs 0044-0047 0095-0098, and 0101-0104 which respectively corresponds to page 11 third paragraph – page 12 first full paragraph, page 22 third paragraph – page 23 first paragraph, and page 23 last partial paragraph – page 24 second full paragraph of the attached machine translation of the document).
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 establish a connection with a connectable AP as the second access point when the quality of communication with the connectable AP using the second STA is higher than the quality of the communication with the first AP as disclosed
by Ono in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al. in order to managed seamless link
failover between access points (see, for example, the abstract of Kephart, Jr. et al.).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 2 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, further disclose a disconnection unit (soft handover IP stack and soft handover registration and client management application – figure 2) configured to disconnect the first AP after the connection with the second AP is established (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP (paragraph 0023)).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 2 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, also disclose that the wireless communication apparatus (wireless client 102 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) further comprises:
a communication unit (primary and secondary interfaces 104 and 106 – figures 1 and 2) configured to perform data communication with another communication apparatus via an AP (data could be send, for example, to the computer 114 via the AP – figure 1 and paragraphs 0025 and 0027); and
a path change unit (soft handover IP stack and soft handover registration and client management application – figure 2) configured to change a communication path of the data communication with the another communication apparatus from a communication path via the
first AP to a communication path via the second AP, wherein the path change unit changes the communication path based on establishment of the connection with the second AP (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP (paragraph 0023). Data communication could be conducted through the second interface 204 (paragraph 0034)).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by
Ono, fail to specifically disclose the path change unit does not change the communication path in a case where the data communication with the another communication apparatus via the second AP cannot be performed.
Nonetheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well know in the art to maintain a current communication path with an access point if it has been determined that a change of communication path with a different access point results in the failure of or not being able to perform the data communication due to, for example, poor quality.
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 not change the communication path to another access point as known in the art in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, in order to maintain the current communication path and thus the connection used for data transmission with better quality.
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Kephart, Jr. et al. fail to specifically disclose wherein the predetermined condition is a condition about a radio wave strength or a signal-to-noise ratio of a radio wave received from an AP.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono discloses that radio wave reception sensitivities (radio wave strength) and SN ratios (signal-to-noise ratios) are used as communication qualities (paragraphs 0101 and 0102 which corresponds to page 23 last partial paragraph – page 24 first full paragraph of the attached machine translation of the document).
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 consider the radio wave strength or the signal-to-noise ratio as predetermined conditions as disclosed by Ono in the apparatus disclosed by
Kephart, Jr. et al. in order to provide a predictable and objective basis for determining when the
current AP link has degraded and when connection to another AP should be initiated. The modification merely substitutes or supplements Kephart’s link-quality determination with well-known wireless quality metrics used for the same purpose in the same field of endeavor, yielding the predictable result of improved AP selection and more reliable roaming control, consistent with MPEP § 2143 and KSR’s rationale of applying a known technique to improve a similar wireless communication system in the same way.
Consider claim 9, Kephart et al. disclose a control method of a wireless communication apparatus (wireless client 102 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) including at least a first station (STA) (primary interface 104 which could be a wireless radio – figure 1 and paragraphs 0022 and 0025) and a second STA (secondary interface 106 which could be a wireless radio – figure 1 and paragraphs 0022 and 0025), the apparatus being connectable with at least a first access point (AP) (AP1 110 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) and a second AP (AP2 112 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) in parallel (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP when it deems the new connection reliable (paragraph 0023) and the primary interface 104 is coupled to the first access point 110 via a first wireless network connection (IP Connection 1) and the secondary interface 106 is coupled to the second access point 112 via a second wireless network connection (IP Connection 2) (figure 1 and paragraph 0025)), the control method comprising:
detecting that a quality of communication with the first AP with which a connection is established fulfills a predetermined condition (primary interface 204 connection quality is good? – figure 3 step 206 and paragraph 0034); and
establishing a connection with the second AP using the second STA in a state that a
connection with the first AP is established using the first STA (wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new AP, maintain both the connection to the first AP and to the new AP, and then disconnect from the first AP when it deems the new connection reliable (see paragraph 0023), wireless client 102 may be a soft handover WiFi client that may use two WiFi interfaces to make two separate connections to the WiFi infrastructure. The different WiFi interfaces could be two physically different WiFi radios, a single physical WiFi radio that has two virtual WiFi interfaces to the WiFi network, etc. Each WiFi interface could maintain its own connection with separate IP addresses to a WiFi access point (paragraph 0028), and WiFi client 102 includes a primary interface 104 and a secondary interface 106 each having an IP connection to the network infrastructure (which may include access points, network devices, etc.). The WiFi client 102 includes a soft handover IP stack configured to manage transmitting and receiving data packets from the network. The WiFi client 102 includes general applications, which may communicate with the network on an occasional, regular, continuous, etc. basis. The WiFi client 102 also includes a soft handover registration and client management application, which may be configured to control the use of primary and secondary interfaces 104, 106 and handle communication between those interfaces and general applications (figure 2 and paragraph 0031)).
Although Kephart, Jr. et al. disclose that wireless client 102 may establish a connection to a first AP and then to a new (i.e., second) AP (paragraph 0023), Kephart, Jr. et al. do not specifically disclose that the connection to the new (i.e., second) AP is in the case where the detection unit detects that a quality of communication with the first AP fulfills the predetermined condition.
However, connecting to a new/second AP based on the quality of communication with a
first and currently connected AP fulfilling a predetermined condition (e.g., quality of the connection to the first AP is below a threshold) is well known in the art as evidenced by Ono.
Ono discloses a wireless LAN telephone terminal (figure 1) which is connected to the access point A1 (first access point AP – figure 3) using the 0-system voice communication unit 119 (figure 1) to make a call, and in response to the fact that the call status with the access point A1 deteriorates and the reception sensitivity becomes lower than or equal to the threshold (quality of communication fulfills a predetermined condition), the 1-system voice communication unit 129 (figure 1) is used to search for other access points while maintaining the call, and the link with the access point A2 (second access point AP – figure 3) is set based on the search result (see paragraphs 0044, 0050, and 0095-0098 which respectively corresponds to page 11 third paragraph, page 12 fourth full paragraph, and page 22 third paragraph – page 23 first paragraph of the attached machine translation of the document).
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 establish a connection with a second access point when the quality of communication with a first connected access point deteriorates as disclosed
by Ono in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al. in order to managed seamless link
failover between access points (see, for example, the abstract of Kephart, Jr. et al.).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, further disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (inherent in on wireless client) storing a program configured to cause a computer to function as each unit of the wireless communication apparatus (wireless client 102 – figure 1 and paragraph 0025) according to claim 1.
Claims 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kephart, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0150454 A1) in view of Ono (JP 2007-295064 A) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Watanabe (WO 2021/140792 A1).
Consider claims 6 and 11, and as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, fail to specifically disclose wherein the connection unit transmits a probe request frame, an authentication request frame, and an association request frame to the second AP, and wherein the connection unit receives a probe response frame, an authentication response frame, and an association response frame transmitted from the second AP to establish the connection with the second AP (claim 6) and wherein the establishing the connection with the second AP comprises establishing an association between the wireless communication apparatus
and the second AP (claim 11).
In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses that a STA 103 transmits a probe request to an access point (AP 102) and receives a probe response from the AP 102 (S503). After that, the STA 103 transmits an authentication request to the AP 102 (S504) and receives an authentication response from the AP 102 (S505). After that, the STA 103 transmits an association request to the AP 102 (S506), receives an association response from the AP 102 (S507) (claim 6), and establishes a connection between the AP 102 and the STA 103 (association is established – claim 11 (see figures 1 and 5 and paragraphs 0026 and 0029 which respectively corresponds to page 9 second paragraph and to the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 of the attached machine translation of the document)).
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 establish an association with the access point through the probe/authentication/association frame exchange process as disclosed by Watanabe in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, in order to provide a reliable and standardized mechanism for establishing the second AP connection before or during AP switching, thereby predictably enabling the wireless communication apparatus to complete association with the second AP and maintain wireless LAN connectivity. The combination merely applies a known IEEE 802.11 AP association protocol to the known AP-switching/connection-management system for its expected result of establishing an authenticated association between a STA and an AP, consistent with MPEP § 2143 and KSR’s rationale of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, fail to specifically disclose wherein the wireless communication apparatus further comprises:
a print unit configured to print an image; and
a reception unit configured to receive image data to be printed via the first or second AP.
In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses that both the STA 103 and the AP 102 could be a printer and perform printing processing utilizing a functional unit 303 (print unit and reception unit – see figure 3 and paragraph 0019 which corresponds to page 6 second paragraph of the attached machine translation of the document).
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 also include a print unit and reception unit as disclosed by Watanabe in the apparatus disclosed by Kephart, Jr. et al., as modified by Ono, in order to allow the apparatus to use the improved AP connection-switching technique while performing a common network-printer operation, namely receiving image data through the connected AP and printing the image. The proposed combination merely applies the known wireless AP connection management of Kephart/Ono to a known wireless printer environment of Watanabe, yielding the predictable result of a printer that can receive print image data via either AP and maintain network printing functionality during AP switching, consistent with MPEP § 2143 and KSR’s rationale of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights