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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues:
Nainar does not show, describe, or suggest the use of the unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame for this operation. In fact, the Examiner admits that "Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame [and] does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame." Office action, paragraph 3. The particular paragraphs cited by the Examiner do not mention either a neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10-12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as allegedly being anticipated by Nainar is respectfully requested. (see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s arguments)
Regarding rejections of claims 3 and 5, the Applicant argues:
In Paragraph 5 of the Office Action, claims 3 and 5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Nainar in view of U.S. Patent No. 2014/0098682 (Cao). The Examiner states:
As discussed above, each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 has been amended to recite that "an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame." (Emphasis Added). Nainar does not show, describe, or suggest the use of the unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame for this operation. Similar to Nainar, Cao does not disclose either the unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame. Coa clearly discloses that neighbor reports are provided in response to a solicitation, thereby teaching away from claims 3 and 5. See Coa, FIGS. 8 and 9. The type of frame explicitly recited in claims 1, 10, and 16 (claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 1) is completely missing from Nainar and Coa. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Nainar in view of Cao is respectfully requested. Further, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-20 are patentable over Nainar and Coa under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons discussed above. (see pages 9-10 of Applicant’s arguments)
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the Applicant argues:
As discussed above, each of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 has been amended to recite that "an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame." (Emphasis Added). Nainar and Coa clearly do not show, describe, or suggest the use of the unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame for this operation. The Examiner cites a third reference, Soomro, for a disclosure of an unsolicited announcement. However, the provision for the unsolicited announcement is not even related to a pending failure. Clearly, the Examiner's motivation to combine Nainar with Coa and Soomro is based upon permissible hindsight because there is no linking of impending failure in Coa and Soomro to the specific type of unsolicited frame. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Nainar in view of Cao and Soomro is respectfully requested. Further, it is respectfully submitted that clams 1-20 are patentable over Nainar, Coa and Soomro under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons discussed above. (see pages 10-12 of Applicant’s arguments)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant arguments are directed to the references individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (see pages 8-12 of Applicant’s arguments), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner restates, that the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro teach the limitations of “wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame” (limitations previously presented on claims 4 and 6), for the following reasons:
The prior art of Nainar teaches in transmitting a message indicating to move to a different AP (i.e., target access point), the message being according to a 802.11 protocol (p. [0035]). It is well known in the wireless communications art, that the communication between an access point and a station in a 802.11 network is facilitated through frames and Cao teaches that a neighbor report response or a management frame, such as an IEEE 802.11 Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame, are used by a serving access point to transmits neighbor AP list (i.e., target AP information) and other information to the stations (see p. [0038]-[0040]).
In addition, Soomro teaches that an AP is allowed to transmit announcement frames or simply frames to the stations, at least one AP announcement frame includes at least one neighbor report and can be transmitted in an unsolicited manner (page 4, lines 1-9). An AP can transmit an unsolicited AP frame or can wait for STA to request such a frame (page 9, last line – page 10, line 1). Thus, the transmission of unsolicited frames reduces delays since the AP transmits the frame without waiting for a request and one or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute regular frames for unsolicited frames for the purpose of reducing transmission delays.
Further, the Applicant argues, that the “Examiner cites a third reference, Soomro, for a disclosure of an unsolicited announcement. However, the provision for the unsolicited announcement is not even related to a pending failure. Clearly, the Examiner's motivation to combine Nainar with Coa and Soomro is based upon permissible hindsight because there is no linking of impending failure in Coa and Soomro to the specific type of unsolicited frame.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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, 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 1-7, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAINAR et al. (US 2022/0330052) in views of CAO et al. (US 2014/0098682) and SOOMRO et al. (WO 2006/097874).
Regarding claim 1, Nainar discloses a first device (Fig. 1; i.e., first AP 115), comprising:
a circuit (p. [0047]-[0048]) configured to provide at least one frame across a connection to a second device in response to a pending failure (Fig. 4, step 430; p. [0033]-[0035]; the first AP receives failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure) and analyze the failure prediction data, once the first AP analyzes the failure prediction data, the first AP sends a message (i.e., frame) to ones of the plurality of client devices (i.e., second device)), the frame comprising data indicating at least one target access point for the second device (p. [0034]-[0035]; the message from the AP, proactively instruct client devices to move to a neighboring AP (i.e., target access point)).
But, Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a neighbor report message) or basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
The combination of Nainar and Cao does not particularly disclose wherein the neighbor report response frame or the basic service set transition management request frame are unsolicited.
However, Soomro teaches access points which transmit unsolicited frames (page 3, lines 5-13; page 4, lines 1-3; page 7, lines 9-13 and 19-22; page 9, third paragraph; The AP sends announcement frames to the STAs that includes information about the AP capabilities and measurements, which allows the STA to determine the AP to roam, the announcement frames may be sent unsolicited without waiting for the STA request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar and Cao, with the teachings of Soomro, since such a modification would allow the Access Points to transmit information to the stations without waiting for a request, thus reducing the delay in the roaming process.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Nainar discloses wherein the wherein the frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol (p. [0035]; when the chances the AP is going down (i.e., pending failure), the first AP sends a message (e.g., an 802.11v message) to all end users, requesting to move to a different AP) and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation (Fig. 5, steps 505, 510).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro discloses the first device of claim 1, Cao discloses wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a neighbor report message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited neighbor report response frame.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a neighbor report message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
The combination of Nainar and Cao fails to particularly disclose wherein the frame is unsolicited.
However, Soomro teaches access points which transmit unsolicited frames (page 3, lines 5-13; page 4, lines 1-3; page 7, lines 9-13 and 19-22; page 9, third paragraph; The AP sends announcement frames to the STAs that includes information about the AP capabilities and measurements, which allows the STA to determine the AP to roam, the announcement frames may be sent unsolicited without waiting for the STA request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar and Cao, with the teachings of Soomro, since such a modification would allow the Access Points to transmit information to the stations without waiting for a request, thus reducing the delay in the roaming process.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Cao discloses wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
The combination of Nainar and Cao fails to particularly disclose wherein the frame is unsolicited.
However, Soomro teaches access points which transmit unsolicited frames (page 3, lines 5-13; page 4, lines 1-3; page 7, lines 9-13 and 19-22; page 9, third paragraph; The AP sends announcement frames to the STAs that includes information about the AP capabilities and measurements, which allows the STA to determine the AP to roam, the announcement frames may be sent unsolicited without waiting for the STA request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar and Cao, with the teachings of Soomro, since such a modification would allow the Access Points to transmit information to the stations without waiting for a request, thus reducing the delay in the roaming process.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Nainar discloses wherein the circuit is configured to provide an indication of a multi AP or single AP environment across the connection to the second device in response to the pending failure (p. [0034]-[0035]; in response to analyzing the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure), the first AP sends a message instructing the client devices to move to other APs, the message indicates other access points APs and thus indicates a multi-AP environment).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, Nainar discloses wherein the first device is part of an access point (Fig. 5; First Access Point 115).
Regarding claim 11, Nainar discloses an access point (Fig. 1; i.e., first AP 115), comprising:
a circuit (p. [0047]-[0048]) configured to provide an indication as a frame of a multi access point or single access point environment across a connection to a client device in response to a pending failure (p. [0034]-[0035]; in response to analyzing the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure), the first AP sends a message instructing the client devices to move to other APs, the message indicates other access points APs and thus indicates a multi-AP environment – see Fig. 1).
But, Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a neighbor report message) or basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
The combination of Nainar and Cao does not particularly disclose wherein the neighbor report response frame or the basic service set transition management request frame are unsolicited.
However, Soomro teaches access points which transmit unsolicited frames (page 3, lines 5-13; page 4, lines 1-3; page 7, lines 9-13 and 19-22; page 9, third paragraph; The AP sends announcement frames to the STAs that includes information about the AP capabilities and measurements, which allows the STA to determine the AP to roam, the announcement frames may be sent unsolicited without waiting for the STA request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar and Cao, with the teachings of Soomro, since such a modification would allow the Access Points to transmit information to the stations without waiting for a request, thus reducing the delay in the roaming process.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the access point of claim 11, Nainar discloses wherein the frame comprising data indicating at least one target access point for the client device (Fig. 4, step 430; p. [0033]-[0035]; the first AP receives failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure) and analyze the failure prediction data, once the first AP analyzes the failure prediction data, the first AP sends a message (i.e., frame) to ones of the plurality of client devices (i.e., second device); the message from the AP, proactively instruct client devices to move to a neighboring AP (i.e., target access point)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the access point of claim 11, Nainar discloses wherein the indication is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation (p. [0035]; the first AP send a message (e.g., 802.11v message) to all end users, requesting to move to a different AP).
Regarding claim 16, Nainar discloses a method, comprising:
determining a pending failure in a first device (p. [0032]-[0033]); and
providing at least one frame across a connection from the first device to a second device in response to the pending failure (Fig. 4, step 430; p. [0033]-[0035]; the first AP receives failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure) and analyze the failure prediction data, once the first AP analyzes the failure prediction data, the first AP sends a message (i.e., frame) to ones of the plurality of client devices (i.e., second device)), the frame comprising data indicating at least one target device for the second device (p. [0034]-[0035]; the message from the AP, proactively instruct client devices to move to a neighboring AP (i.e., target access point)).
But, Nainar does not particularly disclose wherein the frame comprises an unsolicited neighbor report response frame or an unsolicited basic service set transition management request frame.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a neighbor report response frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a neighbor report message) or basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
However, Cao teaches wherein the frame comprises a basic service set transition management request frame (p. [0037], [0038],[0039], [0040]; the serving AP can wirelessly transmit AP neighbor list and other information to the client device via a Basic Service Set (BSS) Transition Management request frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Cao, since such a modification would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to communicate information with client devices via wireless local area network standard messages.
The combination of Nainar and Cao does not particularly disclose wherein the neighbor report response frame or the basic service set transition management request frame are unsolicited.
However, Soomro teaches access points which transmit unsolicited frames (page 3, lines 5-13; page 4, lines 1-3; page 7, lines 9-13 and 19-22; page 9, third paragraph; The AP sends announcement frames to the STAs that includes information about the AP capabilities and measurements, which allows the STA to determine the AP to roam, the announcement frames may be sent unsolicited without waiting for the STA request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar and Cao, with the teachings of Soomro, since such a modification would allow the Access Points to transmit information to the stations without waiting for a request, thus reducing the delay in the roaming process.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro discloses the method of claim 16, Nainar discloses further comprising: providing an indication of a multi access point or single access point environment across the connection to the second device in response to the pending failure (p. [0034]-[0035]; in response to analyzing the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure), the first AP sends a message instructing the client devices to move to other APs, the message indicates other access points APs and thus indicates a multi-AP environment – see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the method of claim 16, Nainar discloses further comprising: selecting the target device for association with the second device (p. [0037]; the client device may roam to a second AP (i.e., target device) in response to the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the method of claim 18, Nainar discloses further comprising: associating with the target device (p. [0037]; the client device may roam to a second AP (i.e., target device) in response to the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure)).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the method of claim 16, Nainar discloses further comprising: providing an indication of a multi access point or single access point environment across the connection to the second device in response to the pending failure (p. [0034]-[0035]; in response to analyzing the failure prediction data (i.e., pending failure), the first AP sends a message instructing the client devices to move to other APs, the message indicates other access points APs and thus indicates a multi-AP environment – see Fig. 1), where the connection is in an 802.11 network (p. [0017]; each of the plurality of APs may be compatible with specification standards such as IEEE 802.11ax standard); and associating with a node in a cellular network if the indication indicates the single access point environment (Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation these steps are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent (i.e., an indication of a single access point environment) are not met, see MPEP 2111.04).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAINAR et
al. in views of in views of CAO et al., SOOMRO et al., and PETRICK et al. (US 2016/0154722).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the pending failure is determined in response to a bit error rate, a power fluctuation or droop, or a temperature.
However, Petrick teaches wherein the pending failure is determined in response to a bit error rate, a power fluctuation or droop, or a temperature (abstract; Petrick teaches an access point group controller failure notification system, the first access point controller detects a failure issue and creates an imminent failure message, in one embodiment, the failure issue is detected in response to the first access point controller determining that the temperature of the first access point controller is outside a predetermined temperature range – p. [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro with the teachings of Petrick, since detecting a temperature outside a predetermined range is indicative of a failure issue.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Narnia, Cao, and Soomro disclose the first device of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the pending failure is determined in response to a temperature increase.
However, Petrick teaches wherein the pending failure is determined in response to a temperature increase (abstract; Petrick teaches an access point group controller failure notification system, the first access point controller detects a failure issue and creates an imminent failure message, in one embodiment, the failure issue is detected in response to the first access point controller determining that the temperature of the first access point controller is outside a predetermined temperature range, for example, the first access point controller may determine that the temperature is high– p. [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro with the teachings of Petrick, since detecting a temperature outside a predetermined range is indicative of a failure issue.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAINAR et al. in views of CAO et al, SOOMRO et al., and HUANG et al. (WO 2006/076165).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro disclose the access point of claim 12, but does not particularly disclose wherein the frame is a broadcast frame.
However, Huang teaches wherein the frame is a broadcast frame (p. [0023]-[0025]; Huang teaches broadcasting a management frame, such as a broadcast frame, to indicate all associated client stations to indicate that the AP will stop being active at some future point in time (i.e., pending failure)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nainar with the teachings of Huang, since such a modification Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro with the teachings of would allow the access point (i.e., first device) to indicate to all associated client devices that the access point is going offline (i.e., pending failure) in the near future.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nainar, Cao, Soomro, and Huang disclose the access point of claim 13, Huang discloses wherein the broadcast frame is provided as part of a handoff operation (p. [0023]-[0025]; Huang teaches broadcasting a management frame, such as a broadcast frame, to indicate all associated client stations to indicate that the AP will stop being active at some future point in time (i.e., pending failure); p. [0031] - in response to receiving the management frame, the client station initiates the roaming procedure (i.e., handoff ) that associated the client station to a second access point). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Nainar, Cao, and Soomro with the teachings of Huang, since such a modification would allow the client station to initiate a handoff procedure to associate with a new access point in response to receiving the broadcast frame indicating that the first AP will go offline (i.e., pending failure).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643