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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2023 was filed with the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig 1 requires descriptive legends, see MPEP 608.02.V(o) “Legends” (R-Patent Rules: 1.84 “Standards for drawings”(o) Legends: Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below:
Applicant's arguments and Examiner’s respond:
Applicant's arguments 1: Applicant's arguments, page 10, recites “Homchaudhuri describes a softAP device that adjusts radio parameters (e.g., antenna chains and spatial streams). It does not describe the AP as comprising distinct host and Wi-Fi subsystems, nor does it describe different power states applied independently to such subsystems. Lee is directed to cellular network control and paging procedures and similarly does not disclose a Wi-Fi access point having distinct host and Wi-Fi subsystems” ….
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejections are based on the recited claim limitations and the examiner must interpret the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The claim limitation as it was warranted “the method comprising: defining, at a network controller” and Hom teaches in fig 1-2, AP 110, para [0110] and System Controller 130, para [0138], where, the system controller 130 may provide coordination and control for these APs and/or other systems; The claim limitation further recite “a standby mode for the AP, which includes a Wi-Fi subsystem and a host subsystem”, where, Hom teaches in fig 2-3, para [0049], where, the STA may send an indication that it is entering (or has entered) a sleep, standby, or antenna mode which reduces the power consumed by the client as compared to a normal operating mode. The claim limitation further warranted the limitation “a standby mode for the AP, which includes a Wi-Fi subsystem and a host subsystem” and Hom teaches in fig 2, para [0057] and para [0061], Table US-00001, an wireless has been disclosed. It is crystal clear that the claim limitations are properly mapped based on recited claim limitations. Hence Homchaudhuri teaches the limitation. Therefore the arguments are traversed.
Applicant's arguments 2: Applicant's arguments, page 10, recites “Homchaudhuri discloses that the softAP monitors client STA activity and locally adjusts antenna configuration. There is no disclosure of a network controller evaluating criteria for the AP, nor any teaching of the AP's power state being contingent on controller-side determination.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejections are based on the recited claim limitations and the examiner must interpret the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As the claim limitation recites “determining, at the network controller, that the AP satisfies a predetermined criteria” as disclosed by the instant specification, para [0065], “Examples of the predetermined criteria are given below. The predetermined criteria can indicate that the AP is not needed or that traffic on the AP can be handled without the need for the full power of the AP 302. The present disclosure provides that the Wi-Fi subsystem remains powered on, while the host subsystem that includes a central processing unit (CPU) for the AP is powered down”, hence Hom does not explicitly teach, however Lee teaches: Lee: fig 12a-b, para [0228], where, “if the data equivalent to “predetermined criteria or number of STA or traffic” available for transmission is equal to or “exceeds the threshold” equivalent to “satisfied predetermined criteria” indicated by E-UTRAN the UE decides which PDCP PDUs are sent over WLAN or LTE. If the data available is below the threshold, the UE transmits PDCP PDUs on LTE or WLAN as configured by E-UTRAN” equivalent to “satisfies a predetermined criteria” in the station group; and wherein the standby mode includes instructions to cause a host central processing unit (CPU) of the host subsystem to enter sleep mode (Lee: para [0347], where, “if wake-up radio (WUR) is introduced, the WLAN component (i.e., transmit/receive portion, or MODEM part) will enter a sleep or idle mode with WUR on”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “determining, at the network controller, that the AP satisfies a predetermined criteria” as taught by Lee into Hom in order to increase the probability of detection (Lee: para [0153]). Hence Hom in view of Lee teaches all the limitation. Therefore the arguments are traversed and maintained the rejection.
All the remaining arguments are based on the arguments above and are responded to in full.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Homchaudhuri et al (US 2017/0041869 A1), hereinafter, “Hom” , in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0014612 A1), hereinafter, “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Hom discloses: A method for reducing power consumption by a wireless access point (AP) while maintaining connectivity (Hom: fig 3, para [0049], where, “a client STA associated with a softAP may be able to enter into a low (or first) power state, such as power save mode (PSM) equivalent to “reducing power consumption mode”, unscheduled automatic power save delivery (U-APSD)”), the method comprising: defining, at a network controller (Hom: fig 1-2, para [0030], where, “system controller 130 may provide coordination and control for these APs and/or other systems”, see further para [0110] and para [0138]); a standby mode for the AP, which includes a Wi-Fi subsystem and a host subsystem (Home: fig 2-3, para [0049], where, “STA may send an indication that it is entering (or has entered) a sleep, standby, or antenna mode which reduces the power consumed by the client as compared to a normal operating mode”, where, fig 2, para [0047], the AP 110 corresponding to “host subsystem” and fig 3, para [0043], the mobile access point mode 310 equivalent to “Wi-Fi subsystem” which may use wireless technologies such as GSM, UMTS, LTE, and the like for a WLAN backhaul connection”); and
transmitting, from the network controller to the AP, a standby mode for the host subsystem and a power on mode for a Wi-Fi subsystem (Hom: fig 2-4, para [0049], where, “a client STA may send an indication that it is entering (or has entered) a sleep, standby, or antenna mode which reduces the power consumed by the client as compared to a normal operating mode. The softAP may receive this indication of power state from the client STAs and determine whether to enter into a softAP power saving mode”);
Hom does not explicitly teach: determining, at the network controller, that the AP satisfies a predetermined criteria; wherein the standby mode includes instructions to cause a host central processing unit (CPU).
Lee teaches: determining, at the network controller, that the AP satisfies a predetermined criteria (Lee: fig 12a-b, para [0228], where, “if the data equivalent to “predetermined criteria or number of STA or traffic” available for transmission is equal to or “exceeds the threshold” equivalent to “satisfied predetermined criteria” indicated by E-UTRAN the UE decides which PDCP PDUs are sent over WLAN or LTE. If the data available is below the threshold, the UE transmits PDCP PDUs on LTE or WLAN as configured by E-UTRAN” equivalent to “satisfies a predetermined criteria” in the station group).
wherein the standby mode includes instructions to cause a host central processing unit (CPU) of the host subsystem to enter sleep mode (Lee: para [0347], where, “if wake-up radio (WUR) is introduced, the WLAN component (i.e., transmit/receive portion, or MODEM part) will enter a sleep or idle mode with WUR on”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “determining, at the network controller, that the AP satisfies a predetermined criteria” as taught by Lee into Hom in order to increase the probability of detection (Lee: para [0153]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing system, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 19, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing non-transitory storage media, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes non-transitory computer readable storage media. However, Hom discloses non-transitory computer readable storage media (para [0088]).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, Hom modified by Lee teach: wherein the predetermined criteria is on command and the transmitting is done based upon a command at the network controller (Hom: fig 1, para [0028], where, “The access point 110 or user terminal 120 may generate and transmit the paging frame comprising a command field (e.g., a message ID field) that indicates one or more actions for the other access point 110 or user terminal 120 to take”, where, number of STA (station) equivalent to “predetermined criteria”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Hom modified by Lee teach: wherein the predetermined criteria is a station count for the AP (Hom: fig 1, par a[0063, where, “number of stations associated with the softAP” ) equivalent to “predetermined criteria”) is below a predetermined threshold and/or that traffic on the AP is below a predetermined amount.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Hom modified by Lee teach: wherein the transmitting is done automatically (Lee: fig 11, para [0086], where, “a method of automatically shifting equivalent to “transmitting” to the standby mode in a case that time during which there is no communication at the station 1002 exceeds a prescribed time”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Home modified by Lee teach: further comprising: transmitting instructions, from the network controller, for the Wi-Fi subsystem to connect to another AP (Hom: para [0084]-[0087], where, “the machine-readable media may include a transmission line, a carrier wave modulated by data, and/or a computer readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon separate from the wireless node”), wherein the Wi-Fi subsystem operates a predetermined set of processes normally run by the CPU (Hom: para [0084]-[0087], where, “The software modules include instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing system to perform various functions”).
Claims 5-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Homchaudhuri et al (US 2017/0041869 A1), hereinafter, “Hom” , in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0014612 A1), hereinafter, “Lee” further in view of Wu et al (CN 115460716 A), hereinafter, “Wu”.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, neither Hom nor Lee explicitly teach: wherein the standby mode disables any control and provisioning of wireless access points protocol (CAPWAP) until a predetermined wake-up time.
Wu teaches: wherein the standby mode disables any control and provisioning of wireless access points protocol (CAPWAP) until a predetermined wake-up time (Wu: DISCRIPTION: PARAGRAPH NO. 3, PAGE 1, where, “determined as the standby CAPWAP tunnel, notifying the standby AC to generate the forwarding table item for the wireless terminal based on the access information of the wireless terminal notified by the first AP by the standby CAPWAP tunnel, and when receiving the service data from the wireless terminal, sending it to the standby AC through the standby CAPWAP tunnel, to forward the service data of the wireless terminal by the standby AC based on the forwarding table item of the wireless terminal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein the standby mode disables any control and provisioning of wireless access points protocol (CAPWAP) until a predetermined wake-up time” as taught by Wu into Hom in order to improve the reliability of the Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) (Wu: para [DESCRIPTION]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Hom modified by Lee further modified by Wu teach: wherein the predetermined wake-up time is a health check period (Hom: para [0068], where, “Where the AP is configured to enter an AP low power mode only after all associated STAs have entered a STA low power state, the AP may be configured to wait an additional timeout period after receiving OMN acknowledgments. Where the AP is configured to enter the AP low power state after a period of inactivity, the AP may just wait for the configured threshold time and enter the AP low power state”).
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Homchaudhuri et al (US 2017/0041869 A1), hereinafter, “Hom” , in view of Lee et al (US 2019/0014612 A1), hereinafter, “Lee” further in view of Zhai et al (WO 2012048585 A1), hereinafter, “Zhai”.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Hom modified by Lee teach: wherein the standby mode (Hom: para [0063], where, “Where the MAC is in client STA mode, the MAC may assert a PHY_NAP signal and enter a power save mode during the L-SIG deferral period allowing most PHY circuitry to be shut off and keeping a simple timer to wake up after the L-SIG deferral period”), however, neither Hom nor Lee explicitly teach: provides a synchronous periodic keep-alive using a low power timer that operates when the CPU is in a sleep mode.
Zhai teaches: provides a synchronous periodic keep-alive using a low power timer that operates when the CPU is in a sleep mode (Zhai: fig 4, step S406, para (2), where, “the step S406 includes the following steps 1-4: Step 1: The new master router sends a periodic keep-alive packet (that is, periodically sends the keep-alive message), and sends an alternate request message (Alternate router election request packet) to the backup router to initiate the alternate router”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “provides a synchronous periodic keep-alive using a low power timer that operates when the CPU is in a sleep mode” as taught by Zhai into the system of Hom in order to solve the problem that the related art may consume a large amount of bandwidth and increase the burden on the device (Zhai: para [Description]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hom modified by Lee further modified by Zhai teach: wherein the predetermined set of processes (Hom: para [0084]-[0087], where, “The software modules include instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing system to perform various functions”) include one or more of keep-alives, secure wake-up commands, and/or basic telemetry (Zhai: fig 4, step S406, para (2), where, “the step S406 includes the following steps 1-4: Step 1: The new master router sends a periodic keep-alive packet (that is, periodically sends the keep-alive message), and sends an alternate request message (Alternate router election request packet) to the backup router to initiate the alternate router”).
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 NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights