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 .
Application, submitted on 02/14/2024, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li US 2009/0318160 A1.
Referring to claim 18, Li discloses a method (fig.3, load balancing process 300) comprising:
receiving, by a remote computing device (fig.4, wireless switch 104) and from a wireless access point (fig.4, wireless access device 406) information indicating that the wireless access point has received, from a mobile station (fig.4, mobile device 410), as association request to connect to a wireless network of the wireless access point ([0034] and [0040]) (Note: the wireless switch receives an association request from a mobile device via a wireless access device); and
sending, by the remote computing device and to the wireless access point, an instruction to send, by the wireless access point and to the mobile station, an association response ([0021], [0034], and [0040]) (Note: the wireless switch sends an association response containing an acceptance (association request granted) or rejection (association request denied) notice to the mobile device requesting association via the access device).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Duo et al. US 2015/0334598 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Duo).
Referring to claim 19, Li discloses the method of claim 18, except informing a different wireless access point to accept the mobile station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Duo discloses informing a different wireless access point to accept the mobile station ([0063]-[0064]) (Note: the network access device transmits a second message to the selected access point to enable the selected access point to associate with the requesting mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Li with a concept of informing a different wireless access point to accept the mobile station as taught by Duo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a quality of service (QoS) of overall network and an efficient wireless client station roaming.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Liu et al. US 2015/0109912 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Liu).
Referring to claim 20, Li discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the association response is based on a network capacity ([0034] and [0040]) (Note: the association response is based on load metric (capacity) associated with wireless access devices in the network).
Li fails to disclose wherein the association response comprises an available capacity of a different wireless access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses wherein the association response comprises an available capacity of a different wireless access point ([0092] and [0095]) (Note: the reference discloses sending an access response with load value (available capacity) together, wherein the load value is associated with the selected access point AP2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Li with a concept wherein the association response comprises an available capacity of a different wireless access point as taught by Liu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience in a condition of busy wireless network.
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, 2, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis et al. US 2023/0362806 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lumbatis) in view of Calcev et al. US 2016/0295497 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Calcev).
Referring to claim 1, Lumbatis discloses a method (fig.3) comprising:
receiving an association request (fig.3, association request frame 302A) from the mobile station (fig.3 and [0061]) (Note: the client device 4 sends an association request frame 302A across the network that is directed to access point device 2A); and
sending, to the mobile station and based on the association request, an association response (fig.3, association response frame 314), indicating that the mobile station should connect to a different wireless access point (fig.3 and [0063]) (Note: The target access point device 2A sends an association response frame 314 to the client device 4, wherein the association response frame 314 indicates that access point device 2B is the preferred access point device and that the client device 4 should attempt association with access point device 2B).
Lumbatis fails to explicitly disclose a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless access point and from a mobile station, an authentication request to connect to a wireless network of the wireless access point; sending, to the mobile station and based on the authentication request, an authentication response indicating successful authentication of the mobile station; and receiving, after sending the authentication response, an association request from the mobile station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Calcev discloses a method (fig.4) comprising: receiving, by a wireless access point (fig.4, wireless access point 12b) and from a mobile station (fig.4, device 16), an authentication request (fig.4, authentication request message 406) to connect to a wireless network of the wireless access point; sending, to the mobile station and based on the authentication request, an authentication response (fig.4, authentication response message 412) indicating successful authentication of the mobile station; and receiving, after sending the authentication response, an association request from the mobile station (fig.4 and [0039]) (Note: Device 16 sends an authentication request message 406 to access point 12b, wherein Access point 12b sends an authentication response message 412 to device 16 informing device 16 that authentication has succeeded, and if device 16 desires a data exchange through access point 12b, device 16 sends an association request message 414 to access point 12b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Lumbatis with the steps of receiving, by a wireless access point and from a mobile station, an authentication request to connect to a wireless network of the wireless access point; sending, to the mobile station and based on the authentication request, an authentication response indicating successful authentication of the mobile station; and receiving, after sending the authentication response, an association request from the mobile station as taught by Calcev. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent an unauthorized access to network resource.
Referring to claim 2, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1.
Lumbatis further discloses receiving, from a remote computing device (fig.3, network controller device 126), an instruction (fig.3, preferred access point device parameters 312) to send the association response (fig.3, association response 314) indicating that the mobile station should connect to the different wireless access point ([0062]-[0063]) (Note: The network controller device 126 sends the one or more preferred access point device parameters 312 to the target access point device 2A; wherein the one or more preferred access point device parameters 312 to indicate a selected preferred access point device for the client device 4).
Referring to claim 8, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1.
Lumbatis further discloses wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating whether the wireless access point accepts the mobile station ([0063] and fig.8) (Note: The association response format 800 of FIG. 8 can comprise a status code of “SUCCESS” or a value of “1”; wherein an association response frame 314 with a format 800 indicates that a wireless device is to join an original BSSID, the BSSID associated with the target access point device APD 2A).
Referring to claim 10, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 1 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 17, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 10.
Lumbatis further discloses connecting to the different wireless access point based on the association response comprising information indicating the different wireless access point ([0069] and [0063]) (Note: the If the association to the target access point device is not allowed, target access point device sends an association response with a status code to the wireless device so as to steer the wireless device to or allow the wireless device to associate with the preferred access point device. Client device 4 can send an association request frame 316 to the preferred access point device 2B to attempt to associate with access point device 2B based on the association response frame 314 ([0063])).
Claims 3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Wong et al. US 11240746 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Wong).
Referring to claim 3, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating at least one reason why the mobile station should connect to the different wireless access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wong discloses wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating at least one reason why the mobile station should connect to the different wireless access point (Col.13, ll.10-37) (Note: if the association request is rejected, the access point responds with the association response that includes a status code reflecting the rejection reason; wherein the access point may transmit the association response rejecting the association request and suggesting the network device to request association with the identified second access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Lumbatis in view of Calcev with a concept wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating at least one reason why the mobile station should connect to the different wireless access point as taught by Wong. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve a mobile station association request to a wireless access point.
Referring to claim 11, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 3 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 16, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 3 is applicable herein. Wong discloses connecting to the wireless network of the wireless access point based on the association response comprising at least one field indicating at least one reason why the mobile station should connect to the different wireless access point (Col.13, ll.10-37) (Note: if the association request is rejected, the access point responds with the association response that includes a status code reflecting the rejection reason; wherein the access point may transmit the association response rejecting the association request and suggesting the network device to request association with the identified second access point. Responsive to receiving the association response, the network device may transmit an association request to the second access point).
The same motivation provided for claim 3 is applicable herein.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Duo et al. US 2015/0334598 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Duo).
Referring to claim 4, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1, except determining a load of at least one other access point, based on information, wherein the at least one other access point broadcasts the information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Duo discloses determining a load of at least one other access point, based on information, wherein the at least one other access point broadcasts the information ([0039]-[0040]) (Note: In response to the first message transmitted (broadcast) by the access points 202-203, the network access device 204 calculates a load for each of the access points 202-203 according to a predetermined formula, also referred to as a WLAN dynamic load balance algorithm (WLBA), based in part on the load status extracted from the first message).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lumbatis in view of Calcev to incorporate the teachings of Duo to determine a load of at least one other access point, based on information, wherein the at least one other access point broadcasts the information. Doing so would prevent an imbalance in traffic load distribution which results in inefficient resource utilization and poor performance.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Huang et al. US 2023/0046270 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang).
Referring to claim 5, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the association response comprises a value associated with a received signal quality or channel utilization of the wireless access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the association response comprises a value associated with a channel utilization of the wireless access point ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lumbatis in view of Calcev to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide an association response comprising a value associated with a received channel utilization of the wireless access point. Doing so would prevent the mobile station from unnecessarily attempting an association.
Referring to claim 13, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 5 is applicable herein.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Bencheikh et al. US 2024/0357473 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bencheikh).
Referring to claim 6, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the association response comprises a value indicating that the wireless access point is currently associated with a high quantity of other mobile stations.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bencheikh discloses wherein the association response comprises a value indicating that the wireless access point is currently associated with a high quantity of other mobile stations ([0106]-[0107]) (Note: an association response (communications 365) including a notification indicating that the communication device 122 and corresponding user 109 are denied wireless access via the wireless access point 131 because the wireless access point 131 has reached its limit (such as number of visitor communication devices or bandwidth)).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lumbatis in view of Calcev to incorporate the teachings of Bencheikh to provide an association response comprising a value indicating that the wireless access point is currently associated with a high quantity of other mobile stations. Doing so would improve performance and user experience due to overload conditions on an access point.
Referring to claim 14, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 6 is applicable herein.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Patil et al. US 2019/0082373 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Patil).
Referring to claim 7, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1.
Lumbatis further discloses wherein the association response comprises a basic service set identifier (BSSID) of the different wireless access point ([0063]) (Note: association response frame 314 with a format 700 indicates a wireless device is to move (or associate) to another BSSID).
Lumbatis in view of Calcev fails to disclose wherein the association response comprises information indicating a band, a channel, and an operating class of the different wireless access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Patil discloses wherein the association response comprises information indicating a band, a channel, and an operating class of the wireless access point (fig.3 and [0059]) (Note: the reference discloses an association response comprises information indicating a band, a channel, and an operating class of the wireless access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Lumbatis in view of Calcev with a concept wherein the association response comprises information indicating a band, a channel, and an operating class of the different wireless access point as taught by Patil. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve communication between a mobile station and a wireless access point.
Referring to claim 15, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 7 is applicable herein.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Vijayakumar US 2024/0007942 A1.
Referring to claim 9, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 1, except where the association response comprises at least one field indicating a reduced neighbor report (RNR) associated with the different access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vijayakumar discloses where the association response comprises at least one field indicating a reduced neighbor report (RNR) associated with the different access point (fig.4 [0006]-[0007], and [0037]-[0038]) (Note: the probe response is embedded with a reduced neighbor report (RNR) associated with a different access point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the method of Lumbatis in view of Calcev with a concept where the association response comprises at least one field indicating a reduced neighbor report (RNR) associated with the different access point as taught by Vijayakumar. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compatibility for better network services.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of Calcev, and further in view of Goodall et al. US 2004/0218568 A1.
Referring to claim 12, Lumbatis in view of Calcev discloses the method of claim 10, except wherein the association response comprises a received signal quality associated with the wireless access point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Goodall discloses wherein the association response comprises a received signal quality associated with the wireless access point ([0107]) (Note: the reference discloses an access point--receiving a request message, e.g., a message from a remote station requesting association message from a remote station, and responding to the received request message with a response message that includes an indication of the received signal quality).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lumbatis in view of Calcev to incorporate the teachings of Goodall to provide an association response comprising a received signal quality associated with the wireless access point. Doing so would prevent the mobile station from unnecessarily attempting an association.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683