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 . Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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, 10, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry) and Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt).
RE Claim 1, Lee discloses A method comprising:
receiving, by a first access point (AP) working on a first channel, a beacon frame transmitted by a second AP (See Lee [0113] – first AP receives beacon from second AP);
parsing, by the first AP, the beacon frame to obtain information of a second channel indicated in the beacon frame (See Lee [0113] – information obtained from beacon such as operating channel, primary channel); and
discarding, by the first AP, the beacon frame (See Lee FIG 1; Summary; [0113] – frames are eventually discarded when no longer needed (i.e. AP devices have a finite amount of memory)).
Lee does not specifically disclose
determining, by the first AP, a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating, by the first AP, that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel;
validating, by the first AP, that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
However, McHenry teaches of
determining, by the first AP, a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases (See McHenry [0010] – monitoring specific region of spectrum (i.e. scan channel bandwidth) and performing scan to determine harmonic channels (i.e. candidate channels));
validating, by the first AP, that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel (See McHenry [0229] – determining a common channel (to be potential new communication channel) among the subscriber unit channel lists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, comprising determining, by the first AP, a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating, by the first AP, that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel, as taught in McHenry. One is motivated as such in order to provide flexibility while overcoming interreference problems (See McHenry Background; Summary).
Lee, modified by McHenry, does not specifically disclose
validating, by the first AP, that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
Howver, Kneckt teaches of
validating, by the first AP, that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number (See Kneckt [0165], [0180] – change sequence numbers) and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (See Kneckt [0183] – switch channel count based on TBTTs) indicated in the beacon frame (See Kneckt [0260] – validating link based on beacon communicated on new channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, comprising validating, by the first AP, that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame, as taught in Kneckt. One is motivated as such in order to better account for different device capabilities, complexities, and characteristics (See Kneckt Background; Summary).
RE Claim 10¸ Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above, further comprising: receiving, from a controller, an indication to change a working channel of the first AP; and changing the working channel of the first AP according to the indication (See Lee [0080]-[0081], [0129] – determining to change channel and changing channel).
RE Claim 14, Lee discloses A first access point (AP) (See Lee FIG 2) comprising:
at least one processor (See Lee FIGs 1-2 – APs have processors); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor (See Lee FIGs 1-2 – APs have memory coupled to processors), the memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
receive a beacon frame transmitted by a second AP (See Lee [0113] – first AP receives beacon from second AP);
parsing the beacon frame to obtain information of a second channel indicated in the beacon frame (See Lee [0113] – information obtained from beacon such as operating channel, primary channel); and
discard the beacon frame (See Lee FIG 1; Summary; [0113] – frames are eventually discarded when no longer needed (i.e. AP devices have a finite amount of memory)).
Lee does not specifically disclose
determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel;
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
However, McHenry teaches of
determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases (See McHenry [0010] – monitoring specific region of spectrum (i.e. scan channel bandwidth) and performing scan to determine harmonic channels (i.e. candidate channels));
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel (See McHenry [0229] – determining a common channel (to be potential new communication channel) among the subscriber unit channel lists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, comprising determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel, as taught in McHenry. One is motivated as such in order to provide flexibility while overcoming interreference problems (See McHenry Background; Summary).
Lee, modified by McHenry, does not specifically disclose
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
Howver, Kneckt teaches of
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number (See Kneckt [0165], [0180] – change sequence numbers) and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (See Kneckt [0183] – switch channel count based on TBTTs) indicated in the beacon frame (See Kneckt [0260] – validating link based on beacon communicated on new channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, comprising validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame, as taught in Kneckt. One is motivated as such in order to better account for different device capabilities, complexities, and characteristics (See Kneckt Background; Summary).
RE Claim 20, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a first access point (AP) (See Lee FIG 2), cause the first AP to:
receive a beacon frame transmitted by a second AP (See Lee [0113] – first AP receives beacon from second AP);
parsing the beacon frame to obtain information of a second channel indicated in the beacon frame (See Lee [0113] – information obtained from beacon such as operating channel, primary channel); and
discard the beacon frame (See Lee FIG 1; Summary; [0113] – frames are eventually discarded when no longer needed (i.e. AP devices have a finite amount of memory)).
Lee does not specifically disclose
determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel;
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
However, McHenry teaches of
determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases (See McHenry [0010] – monitoring specific region of spectrum (i.e. scan channel bandwidth) and performing scan to determine harmonic channels (i.e. candidate channels));
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel (See McHenry [0229] – determining a common channel (to be potential new communication channel) among the subscriber unit channel lists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, comprising determining a plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on a first frequency of the first channel and a scan channel bandwidth of the first AP, wherein at least a part of signals transmitted on the plurality of candidate harmonic channels is scanned by the first AP as a result of sampling aliases;
validating that the second channel is one of the plurality of candidate harmonic channels based on the information of the second channel, as taught in McHenry. One is motivated as such in order to provide flexibility while overcoming interreference problems (See McHenry Background; Summary).
Lee, modified by McHenry, does not specifically disclose
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame.
Howver, Kneckt teaches of
validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number (See Kneckt [0165], [0180] – change sequence numbers) and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) (See Kneckt [0183] – switch channel count based on TBTTs) indicated in the beacon frame (See Kneckt [0260] – validating link based on beacon communicated on new channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, comprising validating that the beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on a sequence number and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) indicated in the beacon frame, as taught in Kneckt. One is motivated as such in order to better account for different device capabilities, complexities, and characteristics (See Kneckt Background; Summary).
Claims 3, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), and Kraeling et al. (US# 2022/0167133 hereinafter referred to as Kraeling).
RE Claim 3¸ Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above. Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose wherein the beacon frame transmitted by the second AP is a first beacon frame, and validating that the first beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on the sequence number and the TBTT indicated in the first beacon frame comprises: validating that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Kraeling teaches of validating that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold (See Kraeling [0026], [0028] – verifying signal strength is above threshold; if signal strength is below threshold, then performing process to switch channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, comprising validating that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold, as taught in Kraeling. One is motivated as such in order to better communicate with differing types of devices with differing features and requirements (See Kraeling Background; Brief Description).
RE Claim 16¸ Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, discloses a first AP, as set forth in claim 14 above. Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose wherein the beacon frame transmitted by the second AP is a first beacon frame, and the instructions to validate that the first beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on the sequence number and the TBTT indicated in the first beacon frame further comprise instructions to cause the at least one processor to: validate that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Kraeling teaches of validating that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold (See Kraeling [0026], [0028] – verifying signal strength is above threshold; if signal strength is below threshold, then performing process to switch channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry and Kneckt, comprising validating that a signal strength of the first beacon frame is less than a predetermined threshold, as taught in Kraeling. One is motivated as such in order to better communicate with differing types of devices with differing features and requirements (See Kraeling Background; Brief Description).
Claims 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), Kraeling et al. (US# 2022/0167133 hereinafter referred to as Kraeling), and Sadek et al. (US# 2015/0063323 hereinafter referred to as Sadek).
RE Claim 6¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 3 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, does not specifically disclose wherein validating that the first beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on the sequence number and the TBTT indicated in the first beacon frame further comprises: validating that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold.
However, Sadek teaches of validating that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold (See Sadek [0142] – checking that new beacon strength is above threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, comprising validating that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold, as taught in Sadek. One is motivated as such in order to better select an operating channel to reduce communication interference (See Sadek Background; Summary).
RE Claim 19¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, discloses a first AP, as set forth in claim 16 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions to validate that the first beacon frame is transmitted on the second channel based on the sequence number and the TBTT indicated in the first beacon frame further comprise instructions to cause the at least one processor to: validate that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold.
However, Sadek teaches of validating that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold (See Sadek [0142] – checking that new beacon strength is above threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, comprising validating that a signal strength of the second beacon frame is greater than a further predetermined threshold, as taught in Sadek. One is motivated as such in order to better select an operating channel to reduce communication interference (See Sadek Background; Summary).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), Kraeling et al. (US# 2022/0167133 hereinafter referred to as Kraeling), and Jalali et al. (US# 2015/0304810 hereinafter referred to as Jalali).
RE Claim 7¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 3 above, comprising discarding the first beacon frame (See Lee FIG 1; Summary; [0113] – frames are eventually discarded when no longer needed (i.e. AP devices have a finite amount of memory)).
Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, does not specifically disclose determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the first beacon frame exists in a harmonic channel table of the first AP; and updating the harmonic channel table with a timestamp of receiving the first beacon frame.
However, Jalali teaches of determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the first beacon frame exists in a harmonic channel table of the first AP (See Jalali [0039] – determining zone-tag-detected-AP-list includes BSSID and channel); and
updating the harmonic channel table with a timestamp of receiving the first beacon frame (See Jalali [0040] – list includes timestamp of beacon frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Kraeling, comprising determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the first beacon frame exists in a harmonic channel table of the first AP; and updating the harmonic channel table with a timestamp of receiving the first beacon frame, as taught in Jalali. One is motivated as such in order to improve device synchronization (See Jalali Background; Summary).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), Bando et al. (US# 2017/0055272 hereinafter referred to as Bando, and Bhartia et al. (US# 2019/0320385 hereinafter referred to as Bhartia).
RE Claim 8¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 1 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose wherein discarding the beacon frame comprises:
determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame does not exist in a harmonic channel table of the first AP; and
adding a new entry into the harmonic channel table of the first AP, wherein the new entry includes the basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame and timestamp of the creation of the new entry.
However, Bando teaches of
determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame does not exist in a harmonic channel table of the first AP (See Bando [0062], [0066] – based on beacon frame, determining no entry in table (BSSID)); and
adding a new entry into the harmonic channel table of the first AP, wherein the new entry includes the basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame (See Bando [0062], [0066] – adding new entry in table (BSSID)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, comprising determining that a basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame does not exist in a harmonic channel table of the first AP; and
adding a new entry into the harmonic channel table of the first AP, wherein the new entry includes the basic service set identifier indicated in the beacon frame, as taught in Bando. One is motivated as such in order to help prevent interference and reduce delay time (See Bando [0083], [0104], [0134]).
Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Bando, does not specifically disclose wherein the new entry includes timestamp of the creation of the new entry.
However, Bhartia teaches of wherein the new entry includes timestamp of the creation of the new entry (See Bhartia [0042] – storing timestamp of latest update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, and Bando, wherein the new entry includes timestamp of the creation of the new entry, as taught in Bhartia. One is motivated as such in order to improve communication experience by selecting more optimal channels (See Bhartia Background; Overview).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), Bando et al. (US# 2017/0055272 hereinafter referred to as Bando, Bhartia et al. (US# 2019/0320385 hereinafter referred to as Bhartia), and Wang et al. (US# 2021/0051118 hereinafter referred to as Wang).
RE Claim 9¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, Bando, and Bhartia, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 8 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, Bando, and Bhartia, does not specifically disclose checking a last updating timestamp in an entry in the harmonic channel table; and in response to determining that a difference between the last updating timestamp in the entry and a timestamp of the checking of the last updating timestamp is greater than a predetermined threshold, deleting the entry from the harmonic channel table.
However, Wang teaches of checking a last updating timestamp in an entry in the harmonic channel table (See Wang [0025] – checking last update timestamp); and
in response to determining that a difference between the last updating timestamp in the entry and a timestamp of the checking of the last updating timestamp is greater than a predetermined threshold, deleting the entry from the harmonic channel table (See Wang [0025] – entry whose difference between last update time and current time exceeds threshold is deleted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, Kneckt, Bando, and Bhartia, comprising checking a last updating timestamp in an entry in the harmonic channel table; and in response to determining that a difference between the last updating timestamp in the entry and a timestamp of the checking of the last updating timestamp is greater than a predetermined threshold, deleting the entry from the harmonic channel table, as taught in Wang. One is motivated as such in order to improve usage of each entry in the correspondence table (See Wang Summary).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), and Hong et al. (US# 2023/0198582 hereinafter referred to as Hong).
RE Claim 11¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 10 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose wherein a transmission power of the second AP is reduced by the second AP in response to receiving another indication from the controller.
However, Hong teaches of wherein a transmission power of the second AP is reduced by the second AP in response to receiving another indication from the controller (See Hong [0008], [0016] – transmit message to M APs to reduce power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, wherein a transmission power of the second AP is reduced by the second AP in response to receiving another indication from the controller, as taught in Hong. One is motivated as such in order to help reduce power consumption (See Hong Background; Summary).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), and Jeuk et al. (US# 2021/0235286 hereinafter referred to as Jeuk).
RE Claim 12¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 10 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose receiving, from the controller, a second indication to change a BSS color of the first AP; and changing the BSS color of the first AP according to the second indication.
However, Jeuk teaches of receiving, from the controller, a second indication to change a BSS color of the first AP; and changing the BSS color of the first AP according to the second indication (See Jeuk [0024], [0029]-[0030] – AP receiving indication to change BSS color (and channel)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, comprising receiving, from the controller, a second indication to change a BSS color of the first AP; and changing the BSS color of the first AP according to the second indication, as taught in Jeuk. One is motivated as such in order to help avoid color collision (See Jeuk Background; Overview).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US# 2015/0163769 hereinafter referred to as Lee) in view of McHenry et al. (US# 2010/0173586 hereinafter referred to as McHenry), Kneckt et al. (US# 2022/0418022 hereinafter referred to as Kneckt), and Qi et al. (US# 2007/0019584 hereinafter referred to as Qi).
RE Claim 13¸ Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, discloses a method, as set forth in claim 10 above. Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, does not specifically disclose receiving, from the controller, a third indication to tune a reception sensitivity of the first AP; and tuning the reception sensitivity of the first AP according to the third indication.
However, Qi teaches of receiving, from the controller, a third indication to tune a reception sensitivity of the first AP; and tuning the reception sensitivity of the first AP according to the third indication (See Qi [0016] – APs cooperating to adjust radio parameters such as reception sensitivity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the channel determining system, as disclosed in Lee, modified by McHenry, and Kneckt, comprising receiving, from the controller, a third indication to tune a reception sensitivity of the first AP; and tuning the reception sensitivity of the first AP according to the third indication, as taught in Qi. One is motivated as such in order to improve user service quality and performance (See Qi Background; [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 15, 17-18 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steve R Young whose telephone number is (571)270-7518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
/STEVE R YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477