DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, the Application claims a foreign priority to a Taiwanese Application filed on 14 Feb 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 16 Jun 2023 and 9 Apr 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the Reply alleges Homchaudhuri fails to anticipate the claimed invention because it “does not teach of suggest that the AP itself searches for better center frequencies having reduced interference.” Reply, 7 (emphasis omitted). The Reply seems to allege that the claim limitation, “finding a second frequency band that meets a specified quality requirement from a plurality of frequency bands specified by the wireless network communication protocol” requires an AP to search for low interference frequencies. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner contends the claimed invention does not require an AP to “search” for a second frequency band. Instead, the method taught by Homchaudhuri continues to anticipate the claimed invention based on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “find[ing] a . . . frequency band.”
In Homchaudhuri, a STA provides an AP with a vector that includes a number of low interference center frequencies or channels. Homchaudhuri, ¶77. The AP then uses the information provided in the vector “to determine whether a channel change is needed and which channel to use in case a change is to take place.” Ibid. (emphasis added). In other words, the UE provides candidates and the AP selects one of them if a change is need. The AP is still the device that is making the ultimate decision on which channel or frequency to switch to. Id. at 75 (“by allowing the wireless terminals to send a message . . . to the AP, the AP may use information in that message to make a determination of whether to switch channels to better handle interference issues faced by the wireless stations.”). The fact that the UE of Homchaudhuri provides candidate channels (i.e. frequencies) to the AP does not preclude the AP from “find[ing] a second frequency band” to change to because the AP makes the ultimate decision on which channel to change to.
Regarding claim 1, the Reply contends the combination of Jia ‘468 and Sharma fails to teach the same claim concept as Homchaudhuri. Reply, 10-11. Claim 1 is now rejected using Homchaudhuri, rendering the arguments directed to the combination of Jia ’48 and Sharma moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Homchaudhuri (US 20150065157).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Homchaudhuri teaches method and a terminal device comprising a communication circuit and processor for dynamically switching frequency bands, which is adaptable for a terminal device and comprises:
monitoring a first connection quality of the terminal device on a first frequency band (Homchaudhuri, ¶¶69, 93 – terminal detects interference on an open Wi-Fi band), wherein the terminal device exchanges data with a network device on the first frequency band based on a wireless network communication protocol (Homchaudhuri, ¶¶5, 82 – AP exchanges Wi-Fi data with STA on “existing” or “current” channel as shown in figure 5);
in response to determining that the first connection quality of the first frequency band does not meet a specified quality requirement (Homchaudhuri, ¶78 – when the interference amount is greater than a threshold, the terminal transmits a CSA IE), requesting the network device to find a second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement from a plurality of frequency bands specified by the wireless network communication protocol (Homchaudhuri, ¶75 – wireless terminal sends CSA IE to AP for a channel switch; Homchaudhuri, ¶88 – a channel switch is a change or switch from one frequency to another; Homchaudhuri, ¶77 – STA informs AP of Wi-Fi center frequencies [i.e. “second” channels] where the level of interference is low [i.e. meets a quality requirement] and the AP selects one); and
in response to determining that the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement has been found, re-establishing a connection with the network device on the second frequency band. Homchaudhuri, ¶78 (when the interference is greater than a threshold, the AP proceeds with a channel switch to one of the channels with low interference); Homchaudhuri, ¶82 (a subset as small as 1 STA may switch to using the new channel).
Regarding claim 8 and 11, Homchaudhuri teaches a method and network device, comprising a communication circuit and a processor, for dynamically switching frequency bands, which is adaptable for a network device and comprises:
exchanging data with a terminal device on a first frequency band based on a wireless network communication protocol (Homchaudhuri, ¶¶5, 82 – AP exchanges Wi-Fi data with STA on “existing” or “current” channel as shown in figure 5);
in response to a request of the terminal device (Homchaudhuri, ¶75 – wireless terminal sends CSA IE to AP), finding a second frequency band that meets a specified quality requirement from a plurality of frequency bands specified by the wireless network communication protocol (Homchaudhuri, ¶78 – when the interference amount is greater than a threshold, the AP proceeds with a channel switch; Homchaudhuri, ¶88 – a channel switch is a change or switch from one frequency to another; Homchaudhuri, ¶77 – STA informs AP of Wi-Fi center frequencies [i.e. “second” channels] where the level of interference is low [i.e. meets a quality requirement]); and
in response to determining that the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement has been found, re-establishing a connection with the terminal device on the second frequency band. Homchaudhuri, ¶78 (when the interference is greater than a threshold, the AP proceeds with a channel switch to one of the channels with low interference); Homchaudhuri, ¶82 (a subset as small as 1 STA may switch to using the new channel).
Regarding claim 9, Homchaudhuri also teaches in response to determining that the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement has been found, disconnecting a connection between a terminal device and the network device on the first frequency band. Homchaudhuri, ¶147-148 (by switching to the new channel, the previous channel is no longer used [i.e. disconnected]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri (US 20150065157) in view of Jia ‘468 (US 20140269468).
Regarding claim 5, Homchaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1 and an AP proceeding with switching to a channel with low interference (Homchaudhuri, ¶78), but does not explicitly teach “in response to determining that a network device has found the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement, disconnecting a connection between the terminal device and the network device on the first frequency band.” However, Jia ‘468 teaches an AP suspending a connection between itself and an STA. Jia’468, figure 5 (first “Suspend” message disconnects the 2.4 GHz connection between STA and AP); Jia ‘468, ¶¶3, 39 – examples of performance characteristics that are monitored. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to suspend the use of the first frequency band, as taught by Jia ‘468, after connecting to a new channel with lower interference, as taught by Homchaudhuri, in order to free up resources on the first frequency channel for other devices in the network.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri (US 20150065157) in view of Van Doorselaer (US 20130322286).
Regarding claim 2, Homchaudhuri teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “sending a ping command to a network device on the first frequency band; and in response to determining that a transmission time corresponding to the ping command exceeds a first time threshold, determining that the first connection quality of the first frequency band does not meet the specified quality requirement.” However, Van Doorselaer describes the prior art as determining the end-to-end performance of an access point by sending ICMP ping messages. Van Doorselaer, ¶11. Van Doorselaer measure the round trip time of ping packet to create an IP ping matrix. Van Doorselaer, ¶27. And then uses threshold values to assign a level of performance to the IP ping matrix. Id. at ¶36. As a result of this performance testing, Van Doorselaer may suggest using another frequency band. Id. at ¶42. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use RTT determined using ping packets, as taught by Van Doorselaer, to determine when to change to a new channel, as taught by Homchaudhuri, in order to ensure a reference round trip time is provide to all devices. Id. at ¶27.
Regarding claim 3, Homchaudhuri teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “transmitting a specific data with a specified size to a network device; in response to determining that a transmission time for transmitting the specific data exceeds a second time threshold, determining that the first connection quality of the first frequency band does not meet the specified quality requirement.” As discussed in the rejection of claim 2, Van Doorselaer teaches the use of RTT, detected using ping message, to characterize link performance. Infra. Van Doorselaer also teaches the RTT being define for each packet size. Van Doorselaer, ¶27. In the example shown in figure 1, Van Doorselaer uses packet size of 500 bytes as the “specified size.” Id. at figure 1 (see horizontal axis). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use RTT determined using packets of fixed sizes, as taught by Van Doorselaer, to determine when to change to the new channel, as taught by Homchaudhuri, in order to ensure a reference round trip time is provide to all devices. Id. at ¶27.
Claims 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchaudhuri (US 20150065157) in view of Jia ‘501 (US 20220053501).
Regarding claim 4, Homchaudhuri teaches the method according claim 1 and an AP using RSSI to determine an interference value and comparing the interference value to a threshold. Homchaudhuri, ¶49 (RSSI) and ¶78 (interference comparison). Homchaudhuri does not explicitly teach in response to determining that a received signal strength indication (RSSI) corresponding to the first frequency band is lower than a signal strength threshold, determining that the first connection quality of the first frequency band does not meet the specified quality requirement.
However, Jia ‘501 teaches an access point comparing the metrics of a first and second frequency band (Jia ‘501, ¶6) and if the signal strength of the current band is lower than a threshold, a band switch is initiated. Id. at ¶¶3, 54. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change channels, as taught by Homchaudhuri, when signal strength of a current band is below a threshold, as taught by Jia ‘501, in order to provide better performance to the user terminal. Id. at ¶45.
Regarding claim 6, Homchaudhuri teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “in response to determining that a network device does not find the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement, maintaining a connection between the terminal device and the network device on the first frequency band.” However, Jia ‘501 teaches an access point comparing the metrics of a first and second frequency band (Jia ‘501, ¶6) and if the first metric associated with the first frequency band is better than the second metric associated with the second frequency band, the terminal remains with the first band. Id. at ¶¶44-46. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the existing channel, as taught by Homchaudhuri, when it has a quality metric better than a potential new channel, as taught by Jia ‘501, in order to provide better performance to the user terminal. Id. at ¶45.
Regarding claim 10, Homchaudhuri teaches the method according to claim 8, but does not explicitly teach “in response to determining that the second frequency band that meets the specified quality requirement is not found, maintaining a connection between a terminal device and the network device on the first frequency band.” However, Jia ‘501 teaches an access point comparing the metrics of a first and second frequency band (Jia ‘501, ¶6) and if the first metric associated with the first frequency band is better than the second metric associated with the second frequency band, the terminal remains with the first band. Id. at ¶¶44-46. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the existing channel, as taught by Homchaudhuri, when it has a quality metric better than a potential new channel, as taught by Jia ‘501, in order to provide better performance to the user terminal. Id. at ¶45.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461