DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137) in view of Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885).
As to claim 1, 11, 18: Sun teaches a method comprising: determining, by a network management device for a wireless networking device, a difference between a first free-space path loss corresponding to a first Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) band and a second free-space path loss corresponding to a second Wi-Fi band, wherein the wireless networking device comprises a first radio for communicating over the first Wi-Fi band and a second radio for communicating over the second Wi-Fi band ([0022, 23, 35] Power control component 40 may also be configured to determine whether the initial transmit power 154 of the first carrier 170 is less than the initial transmit power 156 of the second carrier 172. That is, to determine which channel or carrier is exhibiting lower pathloss, power control component 40, via transmit power comparison component 158, may be configured to determine which of the first carrier 170 or second carrier 172 has a lower transmit power (e.g., initial transmit power 154 or initial transmit power 156)); and setting, by the network management device, transmit powers of the first radio and the second radio respectively to a first transmit power and a second transmit power based on the difference such that, at a predefined location, a second signal strength over the second Wi-Fi band is … a first signal strength over the first Wi-Fi band, wherein the wireless networking device communicates via the first radio at the first transmit power and the second radio at the second transmit power ([0035] Power control component 40 may further include power allocation component 160, which may be configured to allocate power to one or both of the first carrier 170 and/or the second carrier 172. For instance, based on a determination that the initial transmit power 154 of the first carrier 170 is less than the initial transmit power 156 of the second carrier 172, power allocation component 160 may allocate a first transmit power 162 to the first carrier 170. In some aspects, power allocation component 160 may determine a remaining transmit power following power allocation to the first carrier 170. In such instance, power allocation component 160 may allocate a second power 164 to the second carrier 172 corresponding to the remaining transmit power if the remaining transmit power meets or exceeds the allocation threshold 174, which may correspond to a minimum amount of power sufficient for power allocation (e.g., greater than ‘0’ dB)).
Sun may not explicitly teach greater than or equal to. However, Hu teaches greater than or equal to (the actual transmit power of dRU or dMRU associated with UL TB PPDU can be limited to the minimum value in the following items: (a) DL PL plus target RSSI, (b) maximum allowable transmission power of symbol associated with EHT-LTF and payload, (c) maximum allowable transmission power of symbol associated with EHT-STF, and (d) 6 GHz the maximum allowable transmission power of the LPI system (for example, or, the actual transmission power of dRU or dMRU associated with UL TB PPDU can be limited to the minimum value in the following items: (b) the maximum allowable transmission power of the symbol associated with EHT-LTF and payload, and (c) the maximum allowable transmission power of the 6 GHz LPI system (e.g., the maximum allowable transmission power of the symbol associated with the EHT-LTF and the target RSSI, )).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement adjusting transmit power, taught by Hu, into the communication system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve signal power and reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Hu and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Sun may not explicitly teach 5Ghz and 6Ghz. However, Wu teaches 5Ghz and 6Ghz ([0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement 2.4GHz, 5GHz, or 6Ghz, taught by Wu, into the IEEE 802.11 communication system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication with UE. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Wu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137) in view of Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885).
As to claim 2: Sun teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the network management device, the first free-space path loss for a first operating channel in the first Wi-Fi band, and the second free-space path loss for a second operating channel in the second Wi-Fi band ([0022, 35] determine pathloss).
As to claim 3, 12: Sun teaches the method of claim 1, 11.
Sun may not explicitly teach further comprising selecting, by the network management device, the second transmit power higher than the first transmit power at least by the difference. However, Hu teaches further comprising selecting, by the network management device, the second transmit power higher than the first transmit power at least by the difference (the actual transmit power of dRU or dMRU associated with UL TB PPDU can be limited to the minimum value in the following items: (a) DL PL plus target RSSI, (b) maximum allowable transmission power of symbol associated with EHT-LTF and payload, (c) maximum allowable transmission power of symbol associated with EHT-STF, and (d) 6 GHz the maximum allowable transmission power of the LPI system (for example, or, the actual transmission power of dRU or dMRU associated with UL TB PPDU can be limited to the minimum value in the following items: (b) the maximum allowable transmission power of the symbol associated with EHT-LTF and payload, and (c) the maximum allowable transmission power of the 6 GHz LPI system (e.g., the maximum allowable transmission power of the symbol associated with the EHT-LTF and the target RSSI, )).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement adjusting transmit power, taught by Hu, into the communication system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve signal power and reliability. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Hu and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S., 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Hu discloses adjusting transmit power of the 6 GHz channel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the transmit power to any value, including the difference in pathloss, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
As to claim 4: Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Su may not explicitly teach wherein the first Wi-Fi band is the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band, and the second Wi-Fi band is the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band defined in one or more of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 Specifications. However, Wu teaches wherein the first Wi-Fi band is the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band, and the second Wi-Fi band is the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band defined in one or more of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 Specifications ([0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement 5GHz and 6GHz Wi-Fi, taught by Wu, into the Wi-Fi communication system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication with the UE. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wu and Su in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 10: Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun may not explicitly teach wherein the first Wi-Fi band is the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band, and the second Wi-Fi band is the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band. However, Wu teaches wherein the first Wi-Fi band is the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band, and the second Wi-Fi band is the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band ([0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement 5GHz and 6GHz Wi-Fi, taught by Wu, into the Wi-Fi communication system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable communication with the UE. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Wu and Su in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885) in view of Aftab (US-20230292097).
As to claim 5, 14: Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun may not explicitly teach further comprising generating, by the network management device, a knowledge base of 6 GHz capable client devices based on client device data reported from the wireless networking device. However, Aftab teaches further comprising generating, by the network management device, a knowledge base of 6 GHz capable client devices based on client device data reported from the wireless networking device ([0025, 46, 59]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement knowledge base, taught by Aftab, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and manage transmit power and channel selection for UEs . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Aftab and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885), Aftab (US-20230292097) in view of Rotaliwala (US-20220030462).
As to claim 6, 15: Sun teaches the method of claim 5, 14.
Sun may not explicitly teach further comprising obtaining, by the network management device, a client device association data from the wireless networking device, wherein the client device association data comprises information of client devices associated with each of the first radio of the first Wi-Fi band and the second radio of the second Wi-Fi band. However, Rotaliwala teaches further comprising obtaining, by the network management device, a client device association data from the wireless networking device, wherein the client device association data comprises information of client devices associated with each of the first radio of the first Wi-Fi band and the second radio of the second Wi-Fi band (fig.4A, fig.4B [0035] Prior-art methods of steering the client devices 4 to different RF bands often maintain a connection table that tracks connection data for multiple client devices 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement steering clients using client associations, taught by Rotaliwala, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce crowding on channels. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Rotaliwala and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 7, 16: Sun teaches the method of claim 6, 15.
Sun may not explicitly teach further comprising steering, by the network management device, one or more of the 6 GHz capable client devices from the first radio to the second radio responsive to detecting an imbalance in client device associations between the first radio and the second radio based on the client device association data. However, Rotaliwala teaches further comprising steering, by the network management device, one or more of the 6 GHz capable client devices from the first radio to the second radio responsive to detecting an imbalance in client device associations between the first radio and the second radio based on the client device association data ([0003] Various methods exist for steering client devices to the 5 GHz band to reduce crowding on the 2.4 GHz band)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement steering clients using client associations, taught by Rotaliwala, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce crowding on channels. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Rotaliwala and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885), Aftab (US-20230292097), Rotaliwala (US-20220030462) in view of Iyer (US-20110235591).
As to claim 8: Iyer teaches the method of claim 7.
Sun may not explicitly teach wherein the steering comprises associating the 6 GHz capable client devices to the second radio in compliance with band steering techniques specified in the IEEE 802.11v Specification. However, Iyer teaches wherein the steering comprises associating the 6 GHz capable client devices to the second radio in compliance with band steering techniques specified in the IEEE 802.11v Specification (abstract, [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement IEEE 802.11v, taught by Iyer, into the 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and mitigate crowding on frequency bands. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Iyer in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885), Aftab (US-20230292097), Rotaliwala (US-20220030462) in view of Gandhi (US-20190028946).
As to claim 9, 17: Sun teaches the method of claim 6, 16.
Sun may not explicitly teach further comprising blocking, by the network management device, a new 6 GHz capable client device from associating over the first Wi- Fi band responsive to detecting an imbalance in client device associations between the first radio and the second radio based on the client device association data. However, Gandhi teaches further comprising blocking, by the network management device, a new 6 GHz capable client device from associating over the first Wi- Fi band responsive to detecting an imbalance (reduction of crowding taught by Rotaliwala [0003]) in client device associations between the first radio and the second radio based on the client device association data ([0022-26] The system 200 includes a steering decision module 203. The steering decision module 203 obtains a first signal characteristic and a second signal characteristic from the cellular condition monitor 201 and the WLAN condition monitor 202, respectively. Based on this information, the steering decision module 203 can determine whether to prevent the UE from attempting to connect to the WLAN. This determination applies to the case where the UE is currently connected to the WLAN and the case where it is not).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement blocking UE’s when steering, taught by Gandhi teaches, into the 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and prevent crowding on frequencies. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Gandhi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885) in view of Cariou (US-20210266847).
As to claim 13: Sun teaches the network management device of claim 11.
Sun may not explicitly teach wherein the processing resource is further configured to execute one or more of the program instructions to maintain a PSD for the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band within a predefined regulatory limit specified for the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band. However, Cariou teaches wherein the processing resource is further configured to execute one or more of the program instructions to maintain a PSD for the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band within a predefined regulatory limit specified for the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band ([0034]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement PSD within regulatory limits, taught by Cariou, into the 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and prevent interference. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Cariou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885) in view of Aftab (US-20230292097), Rotaliwala (US-20220030462).
As to claim 19: Sun teaches the networked system of claim 18.
Sun may not explicitly teach wherein the network management device is further configured to: generate a knowledge base of 6 GHz capable client devices based on client device data reported from the wireless networking device. However, Aftab teaches wherein the network management device is further configured to: generate a knowledge base of 6 GHz capable client devices based on client device data reported from the wireless networking device ([0025, 46, 59]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement knowledge base, taught by Aftab, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and manage transmit power and channel selection for UEs. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Aftab and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Sun may not explicitly teach and obtain, from the wireless networking device, a client device association data specifying client devices associated with each of the 5 GHz radio of the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band and the 6 GHz radio of the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band. However, Rotaliwala teaches and obtain, from the wireless networking device, a client device association data specifying client devices associated with each of the 5 GHz radio of the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band and the 6 GHz radio of the 6 GHz Wi-Fi band (fig.4A, fig.4B [0035] Prior-art methods of steering the client devices 4 to different RF bands often maintain a connection table that tracks connection data for multiple client devices 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement steering clients using client associations, taught by Rotaliwala, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce crowding on channels. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Rotaliwala and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US-20170086137), Hu (CN-115119294-A), Wu (US-20230042885), Aftab (US-20230292097), Rotaliwala (US-20220030462) in view of Gandhi (US-20190028946).
As to claim 20: Sun teaches the networked system of claim 19.
Sun may not explicitly teach wherein the network management device is further configured to: responsive to detecting, based on the client device association data, an imbalance in client device associations between the 5 GHz radio and the 6 GHz radio: steer one or more of the 6 GHz capable client devices from the 5 GHz radio to the 6 GHz radio. However, Rotaliwala teaches wherein the network management device is further configured to: responsive to detecting, based on the client device association data, an imbalance in client device associations between the 5 GHz radio and the 6 GHz radio: steer one or more of the 6 GHz capable client devices from the 5 GHz radio to the 6 GHz radio ([0003] Various methods exist for steering client devices to the 5 GHz band to reduce crowding on the 2.4 GHz band)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement steering clients using client associations, taught by Rotaliwala, into the IEEE 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce crowding on channels. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Rotaliwala and Sun in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Sun may not explicitly teach or block a new 6 GHz capable client device from associating over the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band or a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band. However, Gandhi teaches or block a new 6 GHz capable client device from associating over the 5 GHz Wi-Fi band or a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi band ([0022-26] The system 200 includes a steering decision module 203. The steering decision module 203 obtains a first signal characteristic and a second signal characteristic from the cellular condition monitor 201 and the WLAN condition monitor 202, respectively. Based on this information, the steering decision module 203 can determine whether to prevent the UE from attempting to connect to the WLAN. This determination applies to the case where the UE is currently connected to the WLAN and the case where it is not).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement blocking UE’s when steering, taught by Gandhi teaches, into the 802.11 system, taught by Sun, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and prevent crowding on frequencies. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Gandhi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466