DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 10/10/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023 and 3/7/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-3,10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachs et al. (US Pub. 2008/0192696)(S1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, S1 teaches a method [refer Abstract], comprising:
at a wireless device (i.e. user terminal (UT))[refer Fig. 2A; 240]: communicating with a first access point (AP) [refer Fig. 2A; 210](the UT communicates with an access point (i.e. AP))[paragraph 0098], the first AP is associated with a first group of APs (there are at least two APs in the network)[paragraph 0095][refer Fig. 2A] managed by a controller (i.e. access router (AR))[refer Fig. 2A; 250](an AR corresponds to an RNC)[paragraph 0095];
determining to roam (i.e. handover) from the first AP to a second AP [refer Fig. 2A; 220] associated with the first group of APs (the UT can decide to carry out a handover from AP1 to AP2)[paragraph 0101];
transmitting, to the first AP, an indication of intent to roam (a UT can send an intention to handover message)[paragraph 0102];
establishing communication with the second AP [paragraph 0105]; and
receiving, from the second AP, first downlink data (when the UT establishes a session with AP2, downlink IP packets are transmitted to the UT from the AP2 via the AR)[paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 2, S1 teaches establishing communication with the second AP is performed subsequent to transmitting the indication of intent to roam (an intention notify message allows handing over from AP1 to AP2 for the UT, the UT can send the intention to handover to AP1)[paragraph 0102]; and the first downlink data is buffered at the controller subsequent to transmitting the indication of intent to roam (the AR buffers downlink data for sessions addressed to the UT)[paragraph 0103].
Regarding claim 3, S1 teaches buffering (the UT has memory to buffer transmissions)[paragraph 0095][refer Fig. 2A; 245] first uplink data subsequent to transmitting the indication of intent to roam and prior to establishing communication with the second AP (downlink and uplink packets are sent between the UT and AP2 when the authentication procedure is completed)[paragraph 0106]; and
transmitting, to the second AP, the first uplink data after establishing communication with the second AP (downlink and uplink packets are sent between the UT and AP2 when the authentication procedure is completed)[paragraph 0106].
Regarding claim 10, S1 teaches determining to roam from the first AP to the second AP is based at least in part on one or more of: a measurement of signal strength associated with the second AP (i.e. RCPI level of AP2 and AP1)[paragraph 0101].
Regarding claim 11, S1 teaches that the indication of intent to roam comprises one of: an indication of a basic service set (BSS) identifier (BSSID) corresponding to the second AP [paragraph 0100].
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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs et al. (US Pub. 2008/0192696)(S1 hereafter) in view of Jiang et al. (US Pub. 2022/0095188)(J1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, S1 fails to disclose starting a timer corresponding to the indication of intent to roam.
J1 discloses the use of a predetermined timer that can be used to indicate to change the stat of a second path (i.e. handover path) from pending to active [paragraph [paragraph 0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for providing handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a timer for switching from one network device to another as taught by J1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, S1 fails to disclose transmitting, to the first AP, a timer duration corresponding to the timer.
J1 discloses the use of a predetermined timer that can be used to indicate to change the state of a second path (i.e. handover path) from pending to active [paragraph [paragraph 0099], the timer can be configured to be within a predetermined duration [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for providing handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a timer for switching from one network device to another as taught by J1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, S1 fails to disclose the timer duration is set based on an amount of time that the first AP is requested not to transmit data to the wireless device.
J1 discloses the use of a predetermined timer that can be used to indicate to change the state of a second path (i.e. handover path) from pending to active [paragraph 0099], the timer can be configured to be within a predetermined duration based upon a size of a buffer of data to send to a terminal device [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for providing handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a timer for switching from one network device to another as taught by J1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of Emeott et al. (US Pub. 2006/0083200)(E1 herafter).
Regarding claim 7, S1 teaches establishing communication with the second AP comprises: transmitting, to the second AP, an authorization request (i.e. Probe Request)[paragraph 0102]; receiving, from the second AP, an authorization response (i.e. Probe Response)[paragraph 0102].
However, S1 fails to disclose determining a pairwise temporal key (PTK) to use with the second AP; transmitting, to the second AP, a reassociation request; and receiving, from the second AP, a reassociation response.
E1 discloses during reassociation, a temporary session key, such as a pairwaise temporary key (PTK) is derived and installed for use in encrypting communications between a second access point and the a mobile device [paragraph 0017], when a second access point receives a reassociation request, it locates or acquires the PTK and generates the PTK, then transmitting a reassociation response [paragraph 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for providing handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a PTK for handover association as taught by E1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, S1 fails to disclose a first pairwise temporal key (PTK) is used with the first AP and a second PTK is used with the second AP, the second PTK being different from the first AP.
E1 discloses during reassociation, a temporary session key, such as a pairwaise temporary key (PTK) is derived and installed for use in encrypting communications between an access point and the a mobile device using a PMK [paragraph 0017], a PMK (i.e. pairwise master key) is can be pseudo random (i.e. different) for each of the access points [paragraph 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for providing handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a PTK for handover association as taught by E1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 2022/0124855)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, S1 fails to disclose a same pairwise temporal key (PTK) is used with both the first AP and the second AP.
H1 discloses that for multilink (ML) configurations, a same PTK can be used for all ML links, and can stay the same [paragraph 0090].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 to incorporate the use of a PTK that is used for all multi-link (ML) links in a roaming situation as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of adding a security key for the operation of multi-link operations [refer H1; paragraph 0143].
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. 2018/0249382)(Y1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, S1 teaches an apparatus [refer Fig. 2A], comprising:
a processor (i.e. processing means (PM))[refer Fig. 2A; 242] configured to cause a wireless device (user terminal (UT))[refer Fig. 2A; 240] to perform operations comprising:
communicating with a first access point (AP) [refer Fig. 2A; 210](the UT communicates with an access point (i.e. AP))[paragraph 0098], the first AP is among a first group of APs (there are at least two APs in the network)[paragraph 0095][refer Fig. 2A] managed by a controller (i.e. access router (AR))[refer Fig. 2A; 250] (an AR corresponds to an RNC)[paragraph 0095];
determining to roam (i.e. handover) from the first AP to a second AP [refer Fig. 2A; 220] among the first group of APs (the UT can decide to carry out a handover from AP1 to AP2)[paragraph 0101];
transmitting, to the first AP, an indication of intent to roam (a UT can send an intention to handover message)[paragraph 0102];
performing an attempt to establish communication with the second AP [paragraph 0105].
However, S1 fails to disclose determining that the attempt to establish communication with the second AP is not successful; and
in response to determining that the attempt to establish communication with the second AP is not successful, transmitting, to the first AP, an indication that the attempt to establish communication with the second AP is not successful.
Y1 discloses that when an end device encounters a radio link failure, the end station may try to re-establish a radio connection with a wireless station or another wireless station [paragraph 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the re-establishment of a radio link when a radio link has been determined to occur as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide improvement for device to network connectivity [refer Y1; paragraph 0012].
Regarding claim 14, S1 fails to disclose starting a timer in response to transmitting the indication of intent to roam, determining that the attempt to establish communication with the second AP is not successful is performed upon expiration of the timer.
Y1 discloses that the expiration of a timer can be used to cause a target eNB (i.e. second AP) to delete stored context information when a handover does not take place in such a window (i.e. fails to establish)[paragraph 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for teaching of performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a timer to determine when a handover does not take place as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide improvement for device to network connectivity [refer Y1; paragraph 0012].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of Y1, as applied to claim 12, in further view of Gidvani et al. (US Pub. 2018/0184365)(G1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 13, S1 fails to disclose that the indication that the attempt to establish communication with the second AP is not successful comprises a basic service set (BSS) transition management (BTM) frame.
G1 discloses that a station can have an associated BSS and can transmit a BSS transition message query when it detects that it moving away from an access point [paragraph 0098], a BTM request can include a neighbor report element that contains information regarding a BSS with an equivalent profile that the station can switch to or roam [paragraph 0099], and a station can send a BTM response that includes status indications [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for teaching of performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a BTM. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of a station to identify candidate target BSS’s in handover [refer G1; paragraph 0098].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of Funabiki et al. (US Pub. 2006/0240825)(F1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 15, S1 teaches a method [refer Abstract], comprising: at a first access point (AP) [refer Fig. 2A; 210]:
communicating with a controller (i.e. access router (AR))(i.e. access router)[refer Fig. 2A; 250] (an AR corresponds to an RNC)[paragraph 0095], the first AP is among a first group of APs managed by the controller (there are at least two APs in the network)[paragraph 0095][refer Fig. 2A];
communicating with a first wireless device (i.e. user terminal (UT))[refer Fig. 2A; 240] (the UT communicates with an access point (i.e. AP))[paragraph 0098];
receiving, from the first wireless device, a first indication of intent to roam (i.e. handover) from the first AP to a second AP among the first group of APs (the UT can decide to carry out a handover from AP1 to AP2 [paragraph 0101], a UT can send an intention to handover message [paragraph 0102]).
However, S1 fails to disclose in response to the first indication of intent to roam: transmitting, to the controller, a second indication to stop forwarding data for the first wireless device;
removing at least one unit of data from a queue for transmission to the first wireless device; and
transmitting, to the controller, the at least one unit of data.
F1 discloses a handover initiate message format that comprises of a U-Flag that instructs a home agent (i.e. controller) to buffer packets (i.e. stop forwarding)[paragraph 0179], an access router (i.e. access point)[refer Fig. 1; 100] forwards received data packets addressed to the mobile communication apparatus [refer Fig. 1; 20] to the home agent [paragraph 0186].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the buffering of and transmission of data to a home agent (i.e. controller) as taught by F1. One would be motivated to do so to provide improvement for forwarding information [refer F1; paragraph 0123].
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of F1, as applied to claim 15, in further view of G1.
Regarding claim 16, S1 teaches a basic service set of the first AP (during handover procedure, a report that includes further information about another AP, such as BSSID, and other APs)[paragraph 0100].
However, S1 fails to disclose receiving, from the controller, a third indication, the third indication comprising at least one of an indication that the first wireless device has roamed out of a basic service set of the first AP.
G1 discloses that a station can have an associated BSS and can transmit a BSS transition message query when it detects that it moving away from an access point [paragraph 0098], a BTM request can include a neighbor report element that contains information regarding a BSS with an equivalent profile that the station can switch to or roam [paragraph 0099], and a station can send a BTM response that includes status indications [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for teaching of performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a BTM. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of a station to identify candidate target BSS’s in handover [refer G1; paragraph 0098].
Regarding claim 17, S1 fails to disclose that the third indication is in response to the first wireless device establishing communication with the second AP.
G1 discloses that a station can have an associated BSS and can transmit a BSS transition message query when it detects that it moving away from an access point [paragraph 0098], a BTM request can include a neighbor report element that contains information regarding a BSS with an equivalent profile that the station can switch to or roam [paragraph 0099], and a station can send a BTM response that includes status indications [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for teaching of performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a BTM. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of a station to identify candidate target BSS’s in handover [refer G1; paragraph 0098].
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of F1, as applied to claim 15, in further view of Song et al. (US Pub. 2011/0212727)(S2 hereafter).
Regarding claim 18, S1 fails to disclose receiving, from the first wireless device, a third indication to rescind the intent to roam.
S2, in the field of handover, discloses that a mobile station can send to a serving base station a MOB_HO_IND message [paragraph 0040] that can indicate that the mobile station cancels a handoff [paragraph 0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of S1 for performing a handover from one access point to another to incorporate the use of a mobile device canceling a handover as taught by S2. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of handover control to yield predictable results [refer S2; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claim 19, S1 in view of S2 to disclose in response to the third indication: transmitting, to the controller, a fourth indication to resume forwarding data for the first wireless device (the AR can continue to forward data to a UT through the AP1)[paragraph 0103].
Regarding claim 20, S1 teaches receiving, from the controller, the at least one unit of data; and transmitting, to the first wireless device, the at least one unit of data (the AR can continue to forward data to a UT through the AP1)[paragraph 0103].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412