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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claims 9-11 and 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “a client device [that] is approaching an edge of a cell” encompasses “a client device [that] is moving in a cell,” because the edge of a cell includes the edge of the coverage environment enclosing the client device. See Fig.1 and paragraph [0020] (“First client device 135 may be tracked by first AP 115 or controller 105 to be approaching the cell edge (i.e., the edge of coverage environment 110.”) (emphasis added). Because the client device is within the coverage environment, a moving client device is necessarily approaching (i.e., coming nearer or moving toward) to the edge of that coverage environment in the direction of motion. See Fig.1 of the instant application, annotated below by the Examiner, illustrating client device 140 approaching an edge of a cell along two hypothetical directions of motion.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, “a client device [that] is approaching an edge of a cell” does not require that the client device be near or at the cell edge, because “approaching” describes a change in position rather than an absolute position.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 3/17/2026 overcome each and every objection to the claims previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025. The objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
This section attempts to track the order of the headings under the section II of Remarks.
Wang, Saini, or Narasimhan teach: (a) determining that a client device is approaching an edge of a cell; and (b) receiving, from the client device, a list of APs that the client device hears as the client device approaches the edge of the cell
Applicant argues that “Like Wang and Saini, Narasimhan does not teach or suggest ‘edge of a cell’ or ‘approaching’. Rather, Narasimhan, as highlighted above merely discloses a list of APs that a client station can hear.” Remarks at 10. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Narasimhan clearly discloses determining that a client device (client station) is approaching an edge of a cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area); and receiving, from the client device, a list of APs that the client device hears (Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear) as the client device approaches the edge of the cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) (a beacon report, a list of APs that a client station can hear, … [is] compared to determine if client station …, is moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) ([0011] Embodiments of the invention relate to methods determining whether a wireless client is at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage. A WLAN has a plurality of access points (APs) which optionally may be supported by one or more controllers. Wireless client S is connected to AP A. Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear, including signal strengths. AP A collects a neighbor report which contains information on all APs in its neighborhood including signal strengths. These reports from A and S are observed and compared over time to determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage. For example, if the only entry in the station list for client S is AP A to which it is connected, and the signal strength is decreasing over time, S is at the edge of WLAN coverage and is moving away from the WLAN. The process may be implemented at a controller, at a client, or both. [0018] Also according to the IEEE 802.11kl draft standard, a beacon report is a list of APs that a client station can hear, including received signal strengths. A beacon report can contain the list of APs in a client station's cache based on periodic background scans, or an AP can request that the client station perform a new scan and report the results back to the AP. [0023] Referring now to FIG. 2, assume client station S1 is associated to AP2. According to an aspect of the invention, the beacon report from client station S1 and the neighbor report from AP AP2 are compared to determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area.).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Wang, Saini, or Narasimhan do not teach or suggest: (c) selecting a minimal number of nearby APs from the list of APs that the client device hears, but are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device
Applicant argues that “This claim element intentionally selects APs that are unsuitable for roaming (from the list of APs that the client device hears as the client device approaches the edge of the cell), but that can still assist in uplink frame recovery. Neither Wang nor Saini disclose or suggest the claimed nonroaming assistance AP selection strategy.” Remarks at 10 (emphasis in original). The argument is not persuasive because the claim language does not support the asserted requirement that the APs be “intentionally select[ed]” as “unsuitable for roaming” or that the claim recites a “nonroaming assistance AP selection strategy.” The claim limitation “but are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device” does not specify who makes the consideration or when that consideration is made. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation encompasses embodiments in which the consideration is made by another party after the AP list has been selected.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language and is not persuasive.
Wang, Saini, or Narasimhan do not teach or suggest: orchestrating a dedicated rescue channel for multiple APs in support of a client device.
Applicant argues that “the claims limitation requires: a dedicated rescue channel; and configuring multiple APs to monitor the same rescue channel specifically to assist a client near the cell edge.” Remarks at 12 (emphasis added). As an initial matter, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “orchestrating a rescue channel to be used by the plurality of APs in support of the client device,” which is different from “orchestrating a dedicated rescue channel for multiple APs in support of a client device” as in the heading and the argument. Examiner notes that claims 21 and 22 recite “orchestrating the rescue channel comprises causing the plurality of APs to set their monitor radios on the designated rescue channel. However, “designated rescue channel” is not the same as “dedicated rescue channel” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “orchestrating a rescue channel” recited in claims 1, 9, and 17 is not limited by the claim limitation recited in the dependent claims. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Wang, Saini, or Narasimhan do not teach or suggest: simultaneous Dual-Channel Client Transmission.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “As discussed above, Wang does not disclose configuring multiple APs to monitor the same rescue channel created specifically to assist a client near the cell edge.” Remarks at 13. Examiner disagrees. Wang discloses “reconstructing (decod[ing], successful reception) an original message (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, Data (3414, 3423) from WTRU to AP1 and AP2 (3414, 3423)) from duplicate copies of Uplink (UL) frames (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU received by each of multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, Data from WTRU received by each of AP1 and AP2 3414, 3423) received by the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) on the rescue channel ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. The APs may respond with an acknowledgement 3414 of the data sent if successful.)” which necessarily involves monitoring of the rescue channel.
Applicant further argues that “Wang merely discloses that WTRU transmits signal to multiple APs. Nowhere does Wang teach or suggest: (e) causing the client device to transmit on the rescue channel to the plurality of APs in addition to continuing to transmit and receive on an existing channel.” Remarks at 14. Examiner disagrees. Wang clearly disclose “continuing to transmit and receive on an existing channel” such as an existing channel of different transceiver or wireless link and different channels ([0076] Some or all of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d in the communications system 100 may include multi-mode capabilities, i.e., the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may include multiple transceivers for communicating with different wireless networks over different wireless links (hence existing channel of different transceiver or wireless link). For example, the WTRU 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a, which may employ a cellular-based radio technology, and with the base station 114b, which may employ an IEEE 802 radio technology.; [0302] These WLAN interfaces may also adhere to the same (for example, multiple 802.11ac devices tuning to different channels) or different WLAN standards (for example, one WLAN interface may be 802.11ac WTRU while a second WLAN interface may be 802.11ah WTRU).)”
Wang, Saini, or Narasimhan do not teach or suggest: Reconstructing Messages from Duplicate UL Frames Received by Multiple APs.
Applicant argues that “Wang does not disclose or suggest multi-AP uplink duplicate reception combined with message reconstruction.” Remarks at 14. Examiner disagrees. Wang is directed to “multi-AP and multi-wireless transmit/receive unit joint transmissions” (See abstract), such as jointly decoding (reconstructing) messages from a transmitted signal ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.) Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not support the limitation “determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell in response to determining that the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR),” as recited in claims 3, 11 and 18. Paragraph [0020]1 of the instant specification may be relevant, but it only discloses that “the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)” in a case where “the client device is approaching the edge of the cell.” It does not disclose the claimed “in response to” relationship between the client device dropping below the SNR threshold and approaching the edge of the cell, nor does it disclose that determining is performed in response to the SNR condition. Moreover, the claim language “has dropped below” differs from the specification’s disclosure that the client device “is dropping below,” further underscoring the lack of support.
Claim Objections
The limitation “the designated rescue channel” recited in claims 21 and 22 should read “a designated rescue channel”. Otherwise, the limitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 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.
The original disclosure does not support the limitation “determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell in response to receiving a distress signal from the client device,” as recited in claims 2, 10 and 18. Paragraph [0020]2 of the instant specification discloses only receiving a distress signal in a case where the client device is approaching the edge of the cell; it does not disclose the claimed “in response to” relationship, nor does it disclose determining in response to the receipt of the distress signal.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-22 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.
The limitation “but are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device”, as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17, renders the claims indefinite because it is purely result-oriented and lacks objective boundaries. The phrase recites a subjective conclusion—namely, whether an AP is “good enough” for roaming—without defining any ascertainable criterion by which that conclusion is reached. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of the claimed APs. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
The claim language does not specify:
what metric or combination of metrics determines whether an AP is “good enough” for roaming;
whether the determination is based on received signal strength, throughput, latency, packet loss, authentication status, load, client preference, or some other parameter;
whether the determination is made by the client device, access point, controller, network entity, or a third party;
whether the determination occurs before, during, or after selection of candidate APs; or
whether “good enough” refers to an absolute threshold, a relative ranking, or a context-dependent judgment.
Because the claim fails to recite any objective standard governing the determination, the meaning of the limitation necessarily shifts depending on who is making the judgment and when it is made. In other words, the same AP may fall within or outside the scope of the claim depending on an undefined and subjective assessment. Such claim language is not sufficiently definite because it leaves the public unable to determine the scope of the exclusion with reasonable certainty. See MPEP § 2173.02 (claims must set forth clear boundaries) and Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901.
Applicant’s remarks exacerbate, rather than resolve, the ambiguity. Applicant contends that the claim excludes APs “unsuitable for roaming” and distinguishes prior art APs that merely decline association requests. Remarks at 11. However, the claim itself does not recite “unsuitable,” “declined association request,” or any objective proxy for roaming suitability. Thus, Applicant’s characterization attempts to supply a limiting construction that is absent from the claim language. The Examiner is not persuaded that the scope of the limitation can be determined with reasonable certainty from the claim language as written.
Moreover, the phrase “not considered good enough for roaming purposes” is internally unstable: it suggests that an AP is evaluated against a roaming standard, yet the claim does not state what that standard is, when it is applied, or by whom. As a result, the limitation is susceptible to multiple, inconsistent interpretations, including APs that are:
never considered for roaming;
considered but rejected for roaming;
suitable for roaming only under certain conditions; or
excluded from roaming based on an undisclosed network policy.
Because the claim fails to provide an objective basis for determining which APs fall within its scope, claims 1–3, 5–11, and 13–22 are indefinite under § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20150288427 A1, hereafter Wang) in view of Saini et al. (US 20220070692 A1, hereafter Saini) and in further view of Narasimhan (US 20110194442 A1). Wang is cited by applicant in IDS filed on 11/22/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses:
A method (Figs. 2, 3A, 10, 33A-33D and 34A-34B) comprising: receiving, from a client device (WTRU), a list of Access Points (APs) (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) that the client device hears ([0146] The AAP may identify a receiving WTRU for joint transmission and may request that the receiving WTRU conduct one or more beacon radio measurements or radio measurements on other types of frames from surrounding APs and provide feedback 1003 (hence AAP receives, from WTRU, surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports). The receiving WTRU may conduct the requested radio measurements and may provide feedback to the AAP. The AAP may also be requested by the receiving WTRU to conduct measurements of a neighbor AP to obtain a measurement report.; See also [0147]); selecting, from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports), a plurality of APs ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.), wherein selecting the plurality of APs comprises selecting a minimal number of nearby APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.; [0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400.); orchestrating a rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to be used by the plurality of APs in support of the client device (WTRU), wherein each of the plurality of APs are set to the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) ([0148] The AAP may send a joint transmission query to candidate ATAPs based on the feedback from the receiving WTRU to obtain channel conditions between the ATAP candidates and the receiving WTRU 1005. [0149] These APs may then receive feedback from the queried ATAP candidates in a joint transmission feedback frame 1006 that may provide a channel quality indication, preferred Joint Transmissions Options, and/or a Joint Transmission TxSpec that the responding AP has determined locally based on its local situation such as channel conditions, traffic load, local medium occupancy time, and transmit power limits, etc. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs. Selection criteria for an ATAP may include but is not limited to: [0151] (1) an ATAP having good channel conditions to the receiving WTRU such that the joint transmission may significantly provide throughput improvement for the receiving WTRU; [0152] (2) an ATAP having good channel conditions with the AAP such that the forwarding of coordination information and JTDP, which may be considered as overhead, takes a relatively short period of time; [0153] (3) an ATAP sharing similar capabilities as the AAP such as scheduled channel access, and similar wired/wireless interfaces, etc.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. Upon reception of the RTS from WTRU 3401, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may transmit UniFi CTS 3412 and 3413 to WTRU 3401 to confirm WTRU's 3401 reservation of the resource. In the example of FIG. 34A, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may independently transmit UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 respectively after a specific duration. Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs.; See also [0323]); causing the client device (Figs. 33A-33D, WTRU (3301, 3311, 3321, 3331); a single WTRU transmitting signal to multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, WTRU 3401) to transmit on the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. … Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs. (hence the APs cause WTRU to transmit on the reserve[ed] channel to the APs) [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403.) in addition to continuing to transmit and receive on an existing channel ([0076] Some or all of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d in the communications system 100 may include multi-mode capabilities, i.e., the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may include multiple transceivers for communicating with different wireless networks over different wireless links (hence existing channel of different transceiver or wireless link). For example, the WTRU 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a, which may employ a cellular-based radio technology, and with the base station 114b, which may employ an IEEE 802 radio technology.; [0302] These WLAN interfaces may also adhere to the same (for example, multiple 802.11ac devices tuning to different channels) or different WLAN standards (for example, one WLAN interface may be 802.11ac WTRU while a second WLAN interface may be 802.11ah WTRU).); and reconstructing (decod[ing], successful reception) an original message (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, Data (3414, 3423) from WTRU to AP1 and AP2 (3414, 3423)) from duplicate copies of Uplink (UL) frames (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU received by each of multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, Data from WTRU received by each of AP1 and AP2 3414, 3423) received by the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) on the rescue channel ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. The APs may respond with an acknowledgement 3414 of the data sent if successful.).
Wang further discloses:
The selected APs (selected ATAPs) are not associated with the client device ([0094] A WLAN in infrastructure basic service set (BSS) mode has an AP for the BSS and one or more stations (STAs) (also referred to herein as WTRUs) associated with the AP. [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP, or when the WTRUs do not have acceptable channel conditions compared to other WTRUs in the BSS or overlapping BSS (OBSS). [0104] FIG. 3A shows a high level signal flow diagram of an example coordinated multi-AP joint transmission 300. The AP with which WTRU 301 may be associated may be referred to as the Associated AP (AAP) 302. A second AP participating in the multi-AP transmission to receiving WTRU (R-WTRU) 301 may be referred to as the Assistant AP (ATAP) 303.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; the client devices hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell; and the APs not associated with the client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device.
However, Saini discloses:
APs not associated with a client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device ([0034] Method 200 may begin at starting block 205 and proceed to stage 210 where computing device 600 (e.g., WLC 106 or DNAC 108) may cause an Access Point (AP) (e.g., first AP 124) to decline new association requests received from client devices not associated with the AP. For example, if first AP 124 has clients that are not sending priority traffic (i.e., all traffic displays medium/high delay sensitivity) first AP 124 may start by declining new association requests).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s APs not associated with the client device not be considered good enough for roaming purposes as taught by Saini, in order to upgrade wireless infrastructure (Saini, Abstract).
Wang and Saini do not explicitly disclose determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; and the client device hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell.
However, Narasimhan discloses:
determining that a client device (client station) is approaching an edge of a cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area); and receiving, from the client device, a list of APs that the client device hears (Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear) as the client device approaches the edge of the cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) (a beacon report, a list of APs that a client station can hear, … [is] compared to determine if client station …, is moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) ([0011] Embodiments of the invention relate to methods determining whether a wireless client is at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage. A WLAN has a plurality of access points (APs) which optionally may be supported by one or more controllers. Wireless client S is connected to AP A. Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear, including signal strengths. AP A collects a neighbor report which contains information on all APs in its neighborhood including signal strengths. These reports from A and S are observed and compared over time to determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage. For example, if the only entry in the station list for client S is AP A to which it is connected, and the signal strength is decreasing over time, S is at the edge of WLAN coverage and is moving away from the WLAN. The process may be implemented at a controller, at a client, or both. [0018] Also according to the IEEE 802.11kl draft standard, a beacon report is a list of APs that a client station can hear, including received signal strengths. A beacon report can contain the list of APs in a client station's cache based on periodic background scans, or an AP can request that the client station perform a new scan and report the results back to the AP. [0023] Referring now to FIG. 2, assume client station S1 is associated to AP2. According to an aspect of the invention, the beacon report from client station S1 and the neighbor report from AP AP2 are compared to determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Wang and Saini to comprise determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan and modify Wang and Saini’s receiving, from the client device, the list of APs to comprise receiving the list as the client device approaches the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan, in order to apply Joint transmissions (Wang, [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP) when the station is determined to be at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage from the beacon reports collected over time from client stations (Narasimhan, Abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan disclose:
wherein determining that the client device is at the edge of the cell is accompanied by determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell (See the rejection of claims 1 and 17 above).
Wang further discloses:
determining that the client device is at the edge of the cell (WTRU is determined to be at an edge of a cell by determining to use Joint transmissions) in response to receiving a distress signal (UL signal with poor performance, UL signal with significantly limited throughput) from the client device ([0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP;).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Wang discloses:
wherein the rescue channel is specially reserved designated rescue channel ([0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission.; the channel for transmission is specially reserved by transmit[ting] a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission) to be used to support the client device at an edge of a cell in an operating environment ([0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. Upon reception of the RTS from WTRU 3401, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may transmit UniFi CTS 3412 and 3413 to WTRU 3401 to confirm WTRU's 3401 reservation of the resource. In the example of FIG. 34A, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may independently transmit UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 respectively after a specific duration. Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs.; See also [0323]).
Wang and Saini do not disclose the rescue channel is used to support the client device approaching an edge of a cell in an operating environment.
However, Narasimhan discloses signal strength from APs are decreasing as a client device approaches an edge of a cell in an operating environment ([0028] Case 3: SB is a subset of AN and the signal strength from all the APs in SB are decreasing across multiple beacon reports. SB could either be a proper subset of AN or be equal to AN. If AP A is an edge AP, then the most likely scenario here is that the station is moving towards the periphery of WLAN coverage area and is at risk of losing WLAN coverage.; See also Abstract, [0011], [0029]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rescue channel of Wang and Saini to be used to support the client device approaching an edge of a cell in an operating environment as taught by Narasimhan, in order to compensate limited throughput performance due to decreased signal strength of a client device approaching an edge of cell (Wang, [0102] [0103] [0320]; Narasimhan, Abstract, [0011] [0028] [0029]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wang discloses:
wherein the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) is in the 2.4 GHz band (Table 12, Forwarding transmission band and channel: channel numbers as well as frequency bands such as sub 1 GHz as for 802.11af and 802.11ah, 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, 60 GHz, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses:
wherein causing the client device to transmit on the rescue channel (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. … Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs. (hence the APs cause WTRU to transmit on the reserve[ed] channel to the APs) [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403.) comprises the client device being at the edge of the cell ([0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP;).
Wang does not disclose the client device being at the edge of the cell comprises using a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message.
However, Saini discloses:
the client device being at the edge of the cell comprises using a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message ([0035] For example, as a candidate AP for upgrade (e.g., first AP 124) is detected in an environment with redundant neighbor APs, the candidate AP may be set by WLC 106 or DNAC 108 to send to its n weakest client devices (e.g., those at the edge of first cell 110) a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message. This may be applied to edge client devices because they may be the ones likely to want to roam, thus saving airtime.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the client device being at the edge of the cell in Wang to comprise using a BTM message as taught by Saini, in order to save airtime (Saini, [0035]).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Wang discloses:
wherein reconstructing the original message from the duplicate copies of the UL frames comprises using extrapolation from the duplicate copies (Applicant’s specification mentions “extrapolation” only once ([0026] First AP 115 may reconstruct the original message by extrapolation from the multiple copies.), and does not describe what “extrapolation from the duplicate copies of the UL frames” does or does not entail. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “extrapolation from the duplicate copies” include “joint decoding” “by a super AP” of Wang in Fig.33A and “by a primary AP” in Fig.33B because “[t]he resulting signals may be combined and processed (hence extrapolated) to create the final output signal” in “joint reception and processing”; See [0100], [0315]-[0319]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses:
A system (Associated AP (AAP)) comprising: a memory storage (computer-readable storage media); and a processor (computer or processor) coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to ([0348] In addition, the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media. Examples of computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs).): receive, from a client device (WTRU), a list of Access Points (APs) (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) that the client device hears ([0146] The AAP may identify a receiving WTRU for joint transmission and may request that the receiving WTRU conduct one or more beacon radio measurements or radio measurements on other types of frames from surrounding APs and provide feedback 1003 (hence AAP receives, from WTRU, surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports). The receiving WTRU may conduct the requested radio measurements and may provide feedback to the AAP. The AAP may also be requested by the receiving WTRU to conduct measurements of a neighbor AP to obtain a measurement report.; See also [0147]); select, from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports), a plurality of APs ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.), wherein the processing unit being operative to select the plurality of APs comprises the processing unit being operative to select a minimal number of nearby APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.; [0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400.); orchestrate a rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to be used by the plurality of APs in support of the client device (WTRU), wherein each of the plurality of APs are set to the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) ([0148] The AAP may send a joint transmission query to candidate ATAPs based on the feedback from the receiving WTRU to obtain channel conditions between the ATAP candidates and the receiving WTRU 1005. [0149] These APs may then receive feedback from the queried ATAP candidates in a joint transmission feedback frame 1006 that may provide a channel quality indication, preferred Joint Transmissions Options, and/or a Joint Transmission TxSpec that the responding AP has determined locally based on its local situation such as channel conditions, traffic load, local medium occupancy time, and transmit power limits, etc. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs. Selection criteria for an ATAP may include but is not limited to: [0151] (1) an ATAP having good channel conditions to the receiving WTRU such that the joint transmission may significantly provide throughput improvement for the receiving WTRU; [0152] (2) an ATAP having good channel conditions with the AAP such that the forwarding of coordination information and JTDP, which may be considered as overhead, takes a relatively short period of time; [0153] (3) an ATAP sharing similar capabilities as the AAP such as scheduled channel access, and similar wired/wireless interfaces, etc.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. Upon reception of the RTS from WTRU 3401, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may transmit UniFi CTS 3412 and 3413 to WTRU 3401 to confirm WTRU's 3401 reservation of the resource. In the example of FIG. 34A, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may independently transmit UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 respectively after a specific duration. Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs.; See also [0323]); cause the client device (Figs. 33A-33D, WTRU (3301, 3311, 3321, 3331); a single WTRU transmitting signal to multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, WTRU 3401) to transmit on the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. … Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs. (hence the APs cause WTRU to transmit on the reserve[ed] channel to the APs) [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403.) in addition to continuing to transmit and receive on an existing channel ([0076] Some or all of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d in the communications system 100 may include multi-mode capabilities, i.e., the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may include multiple transceivers for communicating with different wireless networks over different wireless links (hence existing channel of different transceiver or wireless link). For example, the WTRU 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a, which may employ a cellular-based radio technology, and with the base station 114b, which may employ an IEEE 802 radio technology.; [0302] These WLAN interfaces may also adhere to the same (for example, multiple 802.11ac devices tuning to different channels) or different WLAN standards (for example, one WLAN interface may be 802.11ac WTRU while a second WLAN interface may be 802.11ah WTRU).); and reconstruct (decod[ing], successful reception) an original message (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, Data (3414, 3423) from WTRU to AP1 and AP2 (3414, 3423)) from duplicate copies of Uplink (UL) frames (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU received by each of multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, Data from WTRU received by each of AP1 and AP2 3414, 3423) received by the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) on the rescue channel ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. The APs may respond with an acknowledgement 3414 of the data sent if successful.).
Wang further discloses:
The selected APs (selected ATAPs) are not associated with the client device ([0094] A WLAN in infrastructure basic service set (BSS) mode has an AP for the BSS and one or more stations (STAs) (also referred to herein as WTRUs) associated with the AP. [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP, or when the WTRUs do not have acceptable channel conditions compared to other WTRUs in the BSS or overlapping BSS (OBSS). [0104] FIG. 3A shows a high level signal flow diagram of an example coordinated multi-AP joint transmission 300. The AP with which WTRU 301 may be associated may be referred to as the Associated AP (AAP) 302. A second AP participating in the multi-AP transmission to receiving WTRU (R-WTRU) 301 may be referred to as the Assistant AP (ATAP) 303.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the processor comprises a processing unit; determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; the client devices hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell; and the APs not associated with the client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device.
However, Saini discloses:
A processor comprises a processing unit (circuits; “Circuit” appears to be the corresponding structure of the “processing unit” described in the instant specification, See, e.g., [0032] Furthermore, embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced in an electrical circuit comprising discrete electronic elements, packaged or integrated electronic chips containing logic gates, a circuit utilizing a microprocessor, or on a single chip containing electronic elements or microprocessors.) (Saini, [0061] Embodiments of the disclosure may be practiced via a system-on-a-chip (SOC) where each or many of the element illustrated in FIG. 1 may be integrated onto a single integrated circuit. Such an SOC device may include one or more processing units, graphics units, communications units, system virtualization units and various application functionality all of which may be integrated (or “burned”) onto the chip substrate as a single integrated circuit. When operating via an SOC, the functionality described herein with respect to embodiments of the disclosure, may be performed via application-specific logic integrated with other components of computing device 600 on the single integrated circuit (chip).); and
APs not associated with a client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device ([0034] Method 200 may begin at starting block 205 and proceed to stage 210 where computing device 600 (e.g., WLC 106 or DNAC 108) may cause an Access Point (AP) (e.g., first AP 124) to decline new association requests received from client devices not associated with the AP. For example, if first AP 124 has clients that are not sending priority traffic (i.e., all traffic displays medium/high delay sensitivity) first AP 124 may start by declining new association requests).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor to comprise a processing unit as taught by Saini in order to implement the processor via system-on-a-chip (SOC) (Saini, [0061]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s APs not associated with the client device not be considered good enough for roaming purposes as taught by Saini, in order to upgrade wireless infrastructure (Saini, Abstract).
Wang and Saini do not explicitly disclose determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; and the client device hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell.
However, Narasimhan discloses:
determining that a client device (client station) is approaching an edge of a cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area); and receiving, from the client device, a list of APs that the client device hears (Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear) as the client device approaches the edge of the cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) (a beacon report, a list of APs that a client station can hear, … [is] compared to determine if client station …, is moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) ([0011] Embodiments of the invention relate to methods determining whether a wireless client is at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage. A WLAN has a plurality of access points (APs) which optionally may be supported by one or more controllers. Wireless client S is connected to AP A. Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear, including signal strengths. AP A collects a neighbor report which contains information on all APs in its neighborhood including signal strengths. These reports from A and S are observed and compared over time to determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage. For example, if the only entry in the station list for client S is AP A to which it is connected, and the signal strength is decreasing over time, S is at the edge of WLAN coverage and is moving away from the WLAN. The process may be implemented at a controller, at a client, or both. [0018] Also according to the IEEE 802.11kl draft standard, a beacon report is a list of APs that a client station can hear, including received signal strengths. A beacon report can contain the list of APs in a client station's cache based on periodic background scans, or an AP can request that the client station perform a new scan and report the results back to the AP. [0023] Referring now to FIG. 2, assume client station S1 is associated to AP2. According to an aspect of the invention, the beacon report from client station S1 and the neighbor report from AP AP2 are compared to determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing unit of Wang and Saini to be operative to determine that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan and modify Wang and Saini’s receiving, from the client device, the list of APs to comprise receiving the list as the client device approaches the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan, in order to apply Joint transmissions (Wang, [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP) when the station is determined to be at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage from the beacon reports collected over time from client stations (Narasimhan, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan disclose:
wherein the processing unit being operative to determine that the client device is at the edge of the cell, which is accompanied by determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell (See the rejection of claim 9 above).
Wang further discloses:
determining that the client device is at the edge of the cell (WTRU is determined to be at an edge of a cell by determining to use Joint transmissions) in response to receiving a distress signal (UL signal with poor performance, UL signal with significantly limited throughput) from the client device ([0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP;).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses:
wherein the processing unit being operative to cause the client device to transmit on the rescue channel (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. … Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs. (hence the APs cause WTRU to transmit on the reserve[ed] channel to the APs) [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403.) comprises the client device being at the edge of the cell ([0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP;).
Wang does not disclose the client device being at the edge of the cell comprises using the processing unit being operative to use a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message.
However, Saini discloses:
the client device being at the edge of the cell comprises the processing unit being operative to use a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message ([0035] For example, as a candidate AP for upgrade (e.g., first AP 124) is detected in an environment with redundant neighbor APs, the candidate AP may be set by WLC 106 or DNAC 108 to send to its n weakest client devices (e.g., those at the edge of first cell 110) a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management (BTM) message. This may be applied to edge client devices because they may be the ones likely to want to roam, thus saving airtime.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing unit and the client device being at the edge of the cell in Wang to comprise the processing unit being operative to use a BTM message as taught by Saini, in order to save airtime (Saini, [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses:
wherein the processing unit being operative to reconstruct the original message from the duplicate copies of the UL frames comprises the processing unit being operative to use extrapolation from the duplicate copies (Applicant’s specification mentions “extrapolation” only once ([0026] First AP 115 may reconstruct the original message by extrapolation from the multiple copies.), and does not describe what “extrapolation from the duplicate copies of the UL frames” does or does not entail. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “extrapolation from the duplicate copies” include “joint decoding” “by a super AP” of Wang in Fig.33A and “by a primary AP” in Fig.33B because “[t]he resulting signals may be combined and processed (hence extrapolated) to create the final output signal” in “joint reception and processing”; See [0100], [0315]-[0319]).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (computer-readable medium) that stores a set of instructions (a computer program, software, or firmware) which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising ([0348] In addition, the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer-readable medium for execution by a computer or processor. Examples of computer-readable media include electronic signals (transmitted over wired or wireless connections) and computer-readable storage media. Examples of computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs).): receiving, from a client device (WTRU), a list of Access Points (APs) (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) that the client device hears ([0146] The AAP may identify a receiving WTRU for joint transmission and may request that the receiving WTRU conduct one or more beacon radio measurements or radio measurements on other types of frames from surrounding APs and provide feedback 1003 (hence AAP receives, from WTRU, surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports). The receiving WTRU may conduct the requested radio measurements and may provide feedback to the AAP. The AAP may also be requested by the receiving WTRU to conduct measurements of a neighbor AP to obtain a measurement report.; See also [0147]); selecting, from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports), a plurality of APs ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.), wherein selecting the plurality of APs comprises selecting a minimal number of nearby APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) from the list of APs that the client device hears (surrounding APs in feedback 1003 and/or measurement reports) ([0147] The AAP may select candidates to be an ATAP based on the measurement reports fed back from the receiving WTRU 1004. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs.; [0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400.); orchestrating a rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to be used by the plurality of APs in support of the client device (WTRU), wherein each of the plurality of APs are set to the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) ([0148] The AAP may send a joint transmission query to candidate ATAPs based on the feedback from the receiving WTRU to obtain channel conditions between the ATAP candidates and the receiving WTRU 1005. [0149] These APs may then receive feedback from the queried ATAP candidates in a joint transmission feedback frame 1006 that may provide a channel quality indication, preferred Joint Transmissions Options, and/or a Joint Transmission TxSpec that the responding AP has determined locally based on its local situation such as channel conditions, traffic load, local medium occupancy time, and transmit power limits, etc. [0150] The AAP may select one or more candidate ATAPs as the ATAP for a joint transmission session to one or more receiving WTRUs based on the joint transmission feedback 1007 that the AAP received from all the APs. Selection criteria for an ATAP may include but is not limited to: [0151] (1) an ATAP having good channel conditions to the receiving WTRU such that the joint transmission may significantly provide throughput improvement for the receiving WTRU; [0152] (2) an ATAP having good channel conditions with the AAP such that the forwarding of coordination information and JTDP, which may be considered as overhead, takes a relatively short period of time; [0153] (3) an ATAP sharing similar capabilities as the AAP such as scheduled channel access, and similar wired/wireless interfaces, etc.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. Upon reception of the RTS from WTRU 3401, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may transmit UniFi CTS 3412 and 3413 to WTRU 3401 to confirm WTRU's 3401 reservation of the resource. In the example of FIG. 34A, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may independently transmit UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 respectively after a specific duration. Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs.; See also [0323]); causing the client device (Figs. 33A-33D, WTRU (3301, 3311, 3321, 3331); a single WTRU transmitting signal to multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, WTRU 3401) to transmit on the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) to the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. … Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs. (hence the APs cause WTRU to transmit on the reserve[ed] channel to the APs) [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403.) in addition to continuing to transmit and receive on an existing channel ([0076] Some or all of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d in the communications system 100 may include multi-mode capabilities, i.e., the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may include multiple transceivers for communicating with different wireless networks over different wireless links (hence existing channel of different transceiver or wireless link). For example, the WTRU 102c shown in FIG. 1A may be configured to communicate with the base station 114a, which may employ a cellular-based radio technology, and with the base station 114b, which may employ an IEEE 802 radio technology.; [0302] These WLAN interfaces may also adhere to the same (for example, multiple 802.11ac devices tuning to different channels) or different WLAN standards (for example, one WLAN interface may be 802.11ac WTRU while a second WLAN interface may be 802.11ah WTRU).); and reconstructing (decod[ing], successful reception) an original message (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, Data (3414, 3423) from WTRU to AP1 and AP2 (3414, 3423)) from duplicate copies of Uplink (UL) frames (Figs.33A-33D, a transmitted signal from a single WTRU received by each of multiple APs; Figs.34A&34B, Data from WTRU received by each of AP1 and AP2 3414, 3423) received by the plurality of APs (Figs. 33A-33D, AP1 (3302, 3312, 3322, 3332), AP2 (3303, 3313, 3323, 3333); multiple APs receiv[ing] a transmitted signal from a single WTRU; Figs.34A&34B, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403; selected ATAPs) on the rescue channel ([0315] FIG. 33A-33D show several examples in which multiple APs may receive a transmitted signal from a single WTRU and jointly or separately decode the signal in uplink uniform WiFi (UniFi) 3300.; [0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. [0322] WTRU 3401 may then transmit data 3414 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. [0323] In this example WTRU 3401 may transmit data 3423 to AP1 3402 and AP2 3403. The APs may respond with an acknowledgement 3414 of the data sent if successful.).
Wang further discloses:
The selected APs (selected ATAPs) are not associated with the client device ([0094] A WLAN in infrastructure basic service set (BSS) mode has an AP for the BSS and one or more stations (STAs) (also referred to herein as WTRUs) associated with the AP. [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP, or when the WTRUs do not have acceptable channel conditions compared to other WTRUs in the BSS or overlapping BSS (OBSS). [0104] FIG. 3A shows a high level signal flow diagram of an example coordinated multi-AP joint transmission 300. The AP with which WTRU 301 may be associated may be referred to as the Associated AP (AAP) 302. A second AP participating in the multi-AP transmission to receiving WTRU (R-WTRU) 301 may be referred to as the Assistant AP (ATAP) 303.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; the client devices hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell; and the APs not associated with the client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device.
However, Saini discloses:
APs not associated with a client device are not considered good enough for roaming purposes for the client device ([0034] Method 200 may begin at starting block 205 and proceed to stage 210 where computing device 600 (e.g., WLC 106 or DNAC 108) may cause an Access Point (AP) (e.g., first AP 124) to decline new association requests received from client devices not associated with the AP. For example, if first AP 124 has clients that are not sending priority traffic (i.e., all traffic displays medium/high delay sensitivity) first AP 124 may start by declining new association requests).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s APs not associated with the client device not be considered good enough for roaming purposes as taught by Saini, in order to upgrade wireless infrastructure (Saini, Abstract).
Wang and Saini do not explicitly disclose determining that the client device is approaching an edge of a cell; and the client device hears the list of APs as the client device approaches the edge of the cell.
However, Narasimhan discloses:
determining that a client device (client station) is approaching an edge of a cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area); and receiving, from the client device, a list of APs that the client device hears (Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear) as the client device approaches the edge of the cell (determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage; determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) (a beacon report, a list of APs that a client station can hear, … [is] compared to determine if client station …, is moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area) ([0011] Embodiments of the invention relate to methods determining whether a wireless client is at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage. A WLAN has a plurality of access points (APs) which optionally may be supported by one or more controllers. Wireless client S is connected to AP A. Station S collects reports which contain information on all APs station S can hear, including signal strengths. AP A collects a neighbor report which contains information on all APs in its neighborhood including signal strengths. These reports from A and S are observed and compared over time to determine when S is at or is moving to the edge of WLAN coverage. For example, if the only entry in the station list for client S is AP A to which it is connected, and the signal strength is decreasing over time, S is at the edge of WLAN coverage and is moving away from the WLAN. The process may be implemented at a controller, at a client, or both. [0018] Also according to the IEEE 802.11kl draft standard, a beacon report is a list of APs that a client station can hear, including received signal strengths. A beacon report can contain the list of APs in a client station's cache based on periodic background scans, or an AP can request that the client station perform a new scan and report the results back to the AP. [0023] Referring now to FIG. 2, assume client station S1 is associated to AP2. According to an aspect of the invention, the beacon report from client station S1 and the neighbor report from AP AP2 are compared to determine if client station S1 is on or moving to the edge of the WLAN coverage area.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang and Saini’s set of instructions to comprise determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan and modify Wang and Saini’s receiving, from the client device, the list of APs to comprise receiving the list as the client device approaches the edge of the cell as taught by Narasimhan, in order to apply Joint transmissions (Wang, [0102] WTRUs associated with the APs may experience poor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) performance when located a farther distance from the associated AP … For example, when the WTRU is located at a long distance from the AP, its throughput performance may be significantly limited when compared to other WTRUs that may be located closer to the AP.; [0103] Joint transmissions may be used in situations including but not limited to the following: (1) when a WTRU is located too great of a distance from an AP) when the station is determined to be at the edge of wireless local area network (WLAN) coverage from the beacon reports collected over time from client stations (Narasimhan, Abstract).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Wang discloses:
wherein orchestrating the rescue channel (the reserve[ed] channel) comprises causing the plurality of APs to set their monitor radios on the designated rescue channel ([0320] FIG. 34A-34B show example CSMA/CA procedures in which a single WTRU may transmit to multiple APs 3400. In FIG. 34A, WTRU 3401 may transmit a UniFi_RTS frame 3411 to the AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 to reserve the channel for transmission. Upon reception of the RTS from WTRU 3401, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may transmit UniFi CTS 3412 and 3413 to WTRU 3401 to confirm WTRU's 3401 reservation of the resource. In the example of FIG. 34A, AP1 3402 and AP2 3403 may independently transmit UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 respectively after a specific duration. Upon receipt of UniFi_CTS 3412 and 3413 from all APs, WTRU 3401 may transmit data to the available APs.; See also [0323]).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Saini and Narasimhan, and in further view of Dartois (US 20050107047 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan do not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell comprises determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell in response to determining that the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
However, Dartois discloses:
when the client device is approaching the edge of the cell (when the distance between the base station and the mobile is increasing, i.e. when the mobile is approaching the boundary of the cell), the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) (the signal-to-noise ratio … is reduced (hence dropped below) … to send high bit rate data (a predetermined SNR for sending high bit rate data)) ([0005] Sending in spatial diversity mode reduces the probability of transmission errors, especially under non-optimum propagation conditions. In particular, diversity is beneficial when the distance between the base station and the mobile is increasing, i.e. when the mobile is approaching the boundary of the cell, and/or when the signal-to-noise ratio or the signal-to-interference ratio necessary for correct reception is reduced, for example to send high bit rate data.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan’s determining that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell to be in response to the client device dropping below the SNR as taught by Dartois, in order to determine whether to apply spatial diversity mode (Dartois, [0005], [0034], [0035]) using the duplicate copies of UL frames received by the plurality of APs (Wang, FIG. 33A-33D, FIG. 34A-34B) based on the SNR for sending high bit rate data (Wang, [0096], [0100], [0103]; Dartois, [0005], [0034], [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing unit being operative to determine that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell comprises the processing unit being operative to determine that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell in response to determining that the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
However, Dartois discloses:
when the client device is approaching the edge of the cell (when the distance between the base station and the mobile is increasing, i.e. when the mobile is approaching the boundary of the cell), the client device has dropped below a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) (the signal-to-noise ratio … is reduced (hence dropped below) … to send high bit rate data (a predetermined SNR for sending high bit rate data)) ([0005] Sending in spatial diversity mode reduces the probability of transmission errors, especially under non-optimum propagation conditions. In particular, diversity is beneficial when the distance between the base station and the mobile is increasing, i.e. when the mobile is approaching the boundary of the cell, and/or when the signal-to-noise ratio or the signal-to-interference ratio necessary for correct reception is reduced, for example to send high bit rate data.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing unit of Wang, Saini, and Narasimhan to be operative to determine that the client device is approaching the edge of the cell in response to determining that the client device dropping below the SNR as taught by Dartois, in order to determine whether to apply spatial diversity mode (Dartois, [0005], [0034], [0035]) using the duplicate copies of UL frames received by the plurality of APs (Wang, FIG. 33A-33D, FIG. 34A-34B) based on the SNR for sending high bit rate data (Wang, [0096], [0100], [0103]; Dartois, [0005], [0034], [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moo Ryong Jeong whose telephone number is (571)272-9617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
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.
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 “[0020] … First client device 135 may be tracked by first AP 115 or controller 105 to be approaching the cell edge (i.e., the edge of coverage environment 110). First client device 135 may also notice that it is approaching the cell edge where an acceptable roaming candidate AP may not be found. In such a case, first client device 135 may send a distress signal to its home AP (e.g., first AP 115 to which it is associated). In either case, either first AP 115 or controller 105 may elevate a warning that first client device 135 is dropping below an acceptable Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and may need further support.” (emphasis added)
2 See footnote 1 above for an excerpt from paragraph [0020].
Prosecution Insights