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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024 and 12/17/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland et al. (U.S PUB. 2019/0342795, hereinafter “McFarland”) in view of Chennichettyy et al. (U.S PUB. 2022/0078727, hereinafter “Chennichettyy”) and further in view of Gokturk et al. (U.S PUB. 2017/0181178, hereinafter “Gokturk”).
Consider claim 1, McFarland teaches an access point (AP) comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (page 3 [0034]) to: perform a regulatory-compliant traffic check to determine whether a second bandwidth is clear of priority traffic (page 4 [0042]-[0047] i.e., Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) channel availability checks (CAC) to determine whether channels are clear of radar traffic).
McFarland does not explicitly show that performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations over a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) channel of a first bandwidth; modify the WLAN channel from the first bandwidth to the second bandwidth to serve the Wi-Fi ranging request, and upon completed service of the Wi-Fi ranging request, restore the WLAN channel to the first bandwidth for performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations.
In the same field of endeavor, Chennichettyy teaches performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations over a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) channel of a first bandwidth (page 2 [0031]-[0034] i.e., normal WLAN data operation outside Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) exchanges); modify the WLAN channel from the first bandwidth to the second bandwidth to serve the Wi-Fi ranging request (pages 3-4 [0046]-[0050] i.e., allocation and use of different channel bandwidths for FTM ranging exchanges), and upon completed service of the Wi-Fi ranging request (page 3 [0040]-[0043] i.e., receiving FTM ranging requests from client devices), restore the WLAN channel to the first bandwidth for performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations (page 4 [0054]-[0056] i.e., termination of FTM sessions and resumption of normal WLAN operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use, performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations over a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) channel of a first bandwidth; modify the WLAN channel from the first bandwidth to the second bandwidth to serve the Wi-Fi ranging request, and upon completed service of the Wi-Fi ranging request, restore the WLAN channel to the first bandwidth for performing non-ranging Wi-Fi operations, as taught by Chennichettyy, in order to implementing location aware steering using fine timing measurement (FTM) frames in a wireless local area network (WLAN).
McFarland and Chennichettyy in combination fail to teach wherein the second bandwidth is wider than the first bandwidth, responsive to receiving a Wi-Fi ranging request and determining the second bandwidth is clear of priority traffic.
However, Gokturk teaches wherein the second bandwidth is wider than the first bandwidth, responsive to receiving a Wi-Fi ranging request and determining the second bandwidth is clear of priority traffic (page 3 [0026]-[0029] i.e., DFS checks for expanded or aggregated channels prior to transmission).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the disclosing of Gokturk into view of McFarland and Chennichettyy, in order to enable determination of an optimal channel for communication between the network devices and wherein the wireless network device is configured to operate on the optimal channel.
Consider claim 2, McFarland further teaches wherein: the WLAN channel is a Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) WLAN channel (page 4 [0046]); the Wi-Fi ranging request comprises a ranging request to initiate a Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) session traffic (page 4 [0042]-[0047]); and determining the second bandwidth is clear of priority traffic comprises determining the second bandwidth is clear of radar traffic for a DFS regulation-specified time interval (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 3, Gokturk further teaches wherein: performing the regulatory-compliant traffic check for the second bandwidth comprises performing a Zero Wait DFS operation for the second bandwidth (page 4 [0038]-[0042] i.e., apply Zero-wait DFS to CAC procedures is an obvious optimization); and determining the second bandwidth is clear of radar traffic for the DFS regulation-specified time interval comprises completing the Zero Wait DFS operation after the DFS regulation-specified time interval (page 4 [0038]-[0042] i.e., apply Zero-wait DFS to CAC procedures is an obvious optimization).
Consider claim 4, McFarland further teaches wherein the regulatory-compliant traffic check for the second bandwidth is performed repetitively by a dedicated antenna of the AP (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 5, McFarland further teaches wherein the regulatory-compliant traffic check for the second bandwidth is performed in response to detecting a neighbor AP has received a Wi-Fi ranging request (page 9 [0112]).
Consider claim 6, Chennichettyy further teaches wherein the Wi-Fi ranging request is received from a client device (page 3 [0040]-[0043]).
Consider claim 7, McFarland further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to: determine the AP can split antennas (page 6 [0059]); perform the regulatory-compliant traffic check for the second bandwidth using a dedicated antenna of the AP (page 4 [0042]-[0047]); and in response to determining the second bandwidth is clear of priority traffic, mark the second bandwidth as clear of priority traffic (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 8, Chennichettyy further teaches wherein modifying the WLAN channel from the first bandwidth to the second bandwidth to serve the Wi-Fi ranging request is also responsive to determining at least one of the following conditions are satisfied: the AP is not performing a channel scan and is not scheduled to perform a channel scan (page 6 [0092]); the AP is not serving traffic pre-categorized as high priority traffic; the AP is serving traffic load below a threshold level; and the AP is not serving power save client devices (pages 2-3 [0035]-[0039]).
Consider claim 9, Chennichettyy further teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to reject the Wi-Fi ranging request and not modify the WLAN channel to the second bandwidth, responsive to determining at least one of the following conditions are satisfied: the AP is performing a channel scan or is scheduled to perform a channel scan (page 6 [0092]); the AP is serving traffic pre-categorized as high priority traffic; the AP is serving traffic load above a threshold level; and the AP is serving power save client devices (pages 2-3 [0035]-[0039]).
Consider claim 10, McFarland further teaches wherein the instructions cause the processor to: serve the Wi-Fi ranging request while the WLAN channel is at the first bandwidth, responsive to determining the second bandwidth is not clear of priority traffic but the first bandwidth is clear of priority traffic (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 11, McFarland further teaches wherein the WLAN channel is a home channel of the AP (page 11 [0167]).
Consider claim 12, the subject-matter of independent claim 12 relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 12.
Consider claim 13, McFarland further teaches wherein: determining the second bandwidth is clear of radar traffic comprises determining the second bandwidth is clear of radar traffic for a DFS regulation-specified time interval (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 14, Gokturk further teaches wherein: performing the DFS CAC for the second bandwidth comprises performing a Zero Wait DFS operation for the second bandwidth (page 4 [0038]-[0042] i.e., apply Zero-wait DFS to CAC procedures is an obvious optimization); and determining the second bandwidth is clear of radar traffic for the DFS regulation-specified time interval comprises completing the Zero Wait DFS operation after the DFS regulation-specified time interval (page 4 [0038]-[0042]).
Consider claim 15, McFarland further teaches wherein: the non-transitory computer-readable medium is implemented on an access point (AP); and the DFS CAC for the second bandwidth is performed repetitively by a dedicated antenna of the AP (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 16, McFarland further teaches wherein the DFS CAC for the second bandwidth is performed in response to detecting a neighbor AP has received a Wi-Fi ranging request (page 9 [0112]).
Consider claim 17, McFarland further teaches wherein: the non-transitory computer-readable medium is implemented on an AP (page 4 [0042]-[0047]); and the instructions are further executable by the processor to: determine the AP can split antennas, and perform the DFS CAC for the second bandwidth using a dedicated antenna of the AP (page 4 [0042]-[0047]).
Consider claim 18, the subject-matter of independent claim 18 relates to a method performable by an access point (AP) with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 18.
Consider claim 19, Chennichetty further teaches prior to modifying the bandwidth of the WLAN channel, queuing non-ranging Wi-Fi traffic (page 4 [0054]-[0056].
Consider claim 20, Chennichetty further teaches responsive to restoring the WLAN channel to the first bandwidth, reinitiating transmission of the queued non-ranging Wi-Fi traffic in the WLAN channel (page 4 [0054]-[0056].
Conclusion
4. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649