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 .
Amendment, submitted on 07/02/2026, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 35 USC102 and claims 1-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior art(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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friday et al. US 2006/0187873 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Friday).
Referring to claim 1, Friday discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless access point (fig.1, access element) and from a mobile station (fig.1, client remote element), an association request ([0061]) (Note: access element 12 receives an association request from a wireless client); and
sending, to the mobile station and based on the association request, an association response identifying a different wireless access point, wherein the association response does not reject the mobile station ([0061]-[0063]) (Note: central control element transmits to the client and based on the association request, an association response identifying a different access element in a roaming list, wherein the association response does not reject the mobile station).
Referring to claim 2, Friday discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from a remote computing device (fig.1, central control element 24), an instruction to send the association response ([0063]) (Note: the association response is received from a central control element 24 via the access element).
Referring to claim 5, Friday 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 ([0062]) (Note: the roaming list, in the association response, comprises a value associated with a received signal quality).
Referring to claim 10, Friday discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a mobile station (fig.1, client remote element) and to a wireless access point (fig.1, access element), an association request ([0061]) (Note: access element 12 receives an association request from a wireless client); and
receiving, by the mobile station and from the wireless access point, an association response identifying a different wireless access point, wherein the association response does not reject the mobile station ([0061]-[0063]) (Note: central control element transmits to the client and based on the association request, an association response identifying a different access element in a roaming list, wherein the association response does not reject the mobile station); and
connecting, by the mobile station and based on the association response, to the wireless access point or the different wireless access point ([0057]-[0058], fig.4 and [0069]-[0085]) (Note: the wireless client establishes or completes the wireless connection with current wireless access point or different wireless access point based on the association response).
Referring to claim 12, the same ground of rejection provided for claim 5 is applicable herein.
Referring to claim 17, Friday discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising connecting to the different wireless access point based on the association response comprising information indicating the different wireless access point ([0057]-[0058]) (Note: the wireless client connects to the different wireless access point based on the association response comprising the different wireless access point (identified, in one embodiment, by MAC address and BSSID)).
Referring to claim 18, Friday discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a remote computing device (fig.1, central control element 24) and from a mobile station (fig.1, client remote element) via a wireless access point (fig.1, access element), an association request ([0061]) (Note: when an access element 12 receives an association request from a wireless client, it tunnels the association request to central control element 24); and
sending, to the wireless access point and based on the association request, an association response comprising information for the mobile station to select between connecting to the wireless access point and connecting to a different wireless access point ([0061]-[0063], fig.4, [0069]-[0085], and [0057]-[0058]) (Note: central control element transmits to the client and based on the association request, an association response identifying a different access element in a roaming list comprising information for the wireless client to establish or complete the wireless connection with current wireless access point or different wireless access point).
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 3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Wong et al. US 11240746 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Wong).
Referring to claim 3, Friday 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 Friday 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 Friday in view of Lei et al. US 2015/0111575 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lei), and further in view of Jeong et al. US 2015/0139010 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Jeong).
Referring to claim 4, Friday discloses the method of claim 1, determining a load of at least one other access point ([0061] and [0084]).
Friday fails to explicitly disclose determining a load of an access point, based on information, wherein the access point broadcasts the information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lei discloses determining a load of at least one other access point, based on information ([0041]) (Note: the network load management system 402 determines corresponding network load information (e.g., cell user occupancy data) based on Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID) and/or the Service Set Identifier (SSID) (information)).
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 Friday to incorporate the teachings of Lei to determine a load of access point, based on information. Doing so would help optimize network performance, balance traffic, and prevent connection slowdowns.
Friday in view Lei fails to disclose wherein the access point broadcasts the information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jeong discloses wherein the access point broadcasts the information ([0036]) (Note: access points 201 to 203 may regularly broadcast a beacon frame including a service set ID and a basic service set ID).
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 Friday in view Lei with the teaching of Jeong wherein the access point broadcasts the service set ID and basic service set ID. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow wireless devices to easily discover, identify, and roam across Wi-Fi networks.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Bencheikh et al. US 2024/0357473 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bencheikh).
Referring to claim 6, Friday 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 Friday 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 Friday in view of Patil et al. US 2019/0082373 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Patil).
Referring to claim 7, Friday discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the association response comprises a basic service set identifier (BSSID) of the different wireless access point ([0058]) (Note: central control element includes in the association response frame a roaming list including a list of access elements (identified, in one embodiment, by MAC address and BSSID)).
Friday 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 Friday 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Lumbatis et al. US 2023/0362806 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lumbatis).
Referring to claim 8, Friday discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating whether the wireless access point accepts the mobile station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lumbatis 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).
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 Friday with a concept wherein the association response comprises at least one field indicating whether the wireless access point accepts the mobile station as taught by Lumbatis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve a mobile station association request to a wireless access point.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Kneckt et al. US 2022/0408349 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kneckt).
Referring to claim 9, Friday 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, Kneckt discloses a concept where an association response comprises at least one field indicating a reduced neighbor report (RNR) associated with the different access point ([0245]-[0246]) (Note: association response may include an RNR associated with co-located or cohosted (in the same physical access point) or neighboring access points).
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 Friday 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 Kneckt. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow client devices to conserve battery by performing less scanning.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Huang et al. US 2023/0046270 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang).
Referring to claim 13, Friday discloses the method of claim 10, except wherein the association response comprises a value indicating channel utilization associated with 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 Friday 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Friday in view of Duo et al. US 2015/0334598 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Duo).
Referring to claim 19, Friday 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 Friday 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 Friday in view of Liu et al. US 2015/0109912 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Liu).
Referring to claim 20, Friday discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the association response is based on a network capacity ([0063]) (Note: the association response is based on load (capacity) associated with wireless access devices in the network).
Friday 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 Friday 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights