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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15, 18, 20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI et al (US 2014/0347985) in view of LEE et al (US 2016/0373914) further in view of DONG et al (US 2020/0322039)
Regarding claim 1, 10, 18, YI et al (US 2014/0347985) discloses system, comprising: a circuitry, configured to:
transmit on a first probe request to discover a first access point of a first channel (YI: Fig. 9, ¶159, probe request is sent by a STA to a first AP, AP1);
during a dwell time of the first probe request,
transmit, on one or more other channels, one or more additional probe requests to discover one or more other access points of the one or more other channels different than the first channel; and (YI: Fig. 9, ¶159-160, probe request is sent by a STA to second AP, AP2, a third, AP3, and so on, on respective channels); responsive to transmission of the one or more additional probe requests, check for the response to the first probe request on the first channel (YI: ¶160, Fig. 9, switching to a channel for receiving (checking for) a probe response responsive to completing transmission of all probe requests); and receive, the response to the first probe request (YI: ¶160, receiving response to the first probe request).
YI remains silent regarding the probe request being transmitted on the first channel and the response being received on the first channel.
However, LEE et al (US 2016/0373914) the probe request being transmitted on the first channel and the response being received on the first channel (LEE: ¶143, the response frame is sent in the same channel as the probes request transmission channel).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI would have been motivated to use the teachings of LEE as it provides a way to improve channel reuse and conservation of radio resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of YI with teachings of LEE in order to improve channel resource utilization.
YI modified by LEE remains silent regarding wherein the response identifies the first access point
However, DONG discloses the response identifying the first access point (DONG: ¶34, the probe response includes identifying information for the AP for use by the STA).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI would have been motivated to use the teachings of DONG as it provides an efficient way of mobile device, that is roaming withing a network area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of YI modified by LEE with teachings of DONG in order to improve mobility and flexibility (¶32)
Regarding claim 5, 14, 20, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG system of claim 1/14, wherein the circuity is further configured to: responsive to receipt of the response to the first probe request, check for one or more responses to the one or more additional probe requests on the one or more other channels; and receive the one or more responses to the one or more additional probe requests, wherein the one or more responses identify one or more second access points (YI: Fig. 9, ¶159-160, one or more additional APs response to the one or more additional probe requests and the STA switches at respective times, to the channel, in order to check for responses; DONG: ¶34, the probe response includes identifying information for the AP for use by the STA).
Regarding claim 6, 15, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG system of claim 1/14, wherein the one or more additional probe requests include a second probe request and a third probe request, wherein one or more other access points include a second access point and a third access point, and wherein the circuity is further configured to: transmit the second probe request and the third probe request subsequent to the first probe request and prior to a time period that the circuity is configured to check for the response to the first probe request (YI: ¶160, the second and subsequent requests are transmitted prior to a ResDelay1, for example. After this delay, the ProbeResponse is checked by the STA by switching to a channel for reception of the ProbeResponse).
Regarding claim 21, , YI modified by LEE modified by DONG modified by MONTEMURRO discloses system of claim 1, wherein the response to the first probe request is transmitted, by the first access point, on the first channel in response to the first probe request being transmitted on the first channel (LEE: ¶143, the response frame is sent in the same channel as the probes request transmission channel; the first probe request is transmitted on a channel and the response is transmitted on the same channel as the request)
Claim(s) 8-9, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI modified by LEE modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/14, further in view of MONTEMURRO et al (US 2017/0311142)
Regarding claim 8, 17, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG discloses system of claim 1/14, wherein the first channel and the one or more other channels correspond to a first set of frequencies, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit one or more third probe requests across first frequency different than first frequency to discover one or more third access points on the second band (YI: ¶167, ¶159, Fig,. 5, different channels are different frequencies are used for each probe request for discovering respective APs).
YI modified by LEE modified by DONG remains silent regarding first and second frequencies being the first band and the second band respectively.
However, MONTEMURRO et al (US 2017/0311142) discloses first and second frequencies being the first band and the second band respectively (MONTEMURRO: ¶23, ¶20, different bands are used to transmit probe requests including different frequency bands)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of MONTEMURRO as it provides a higher throughput by establishing communication with multiple network devices through multiple paths (¶27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG with teachings of MONTEMURRO in order to improve interference mitigation.
Regarding claim 9, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG modified by MONTEMURRO discloses system of claim 8, wherein the first band includes a first plurality of frequencies, and wherein the second band includes a second plurality of frequencies different from the first plurality of frequencies (MONTEMURRO: ¶23, ¶20, different bands are used to transmit probe requests including different frequency bands with respective different frequencies).
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI modified by LEE modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/10/18, further in view of ASTERJADHI et al (US 2020/0068486).
Regarding claim 2, 11, 19, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG discloses system of claim 1/10/18, but remain silent regarding the one or more other channels are selected based at least on a difference between one or more first frequencies of the first channel and one or more second frequencies of the one or more other channels.
However, ASTERJADHI et al (US 2020/0068486) discloses the one or more other channels are selected based at least on a difference between one or more first frequencies of the first channel and one or more second frequencies of the one or more other channels (ASTERJADHI: ¶79, ¶66, the selection of the channel frequencies for probing is based on the difference between (space) between the channel frequencies).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of ASTERJADHI as it provides a way to reduce channel pollution/interference due to unnecessary probing all channels (¶129) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG with teachings of ASTERJADHI in order to improve efficiency of scanning
Regarding claim 3, 12, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG modified by ASTERJADHI discloses system of claim 2/11, wherein the one or more other channels include a second channel and a third channel, wherein the difference between one or more first frequencies of the first channel and one or more second frequencies of the third channel is different than the difference between the one or more first frequencies of the first channel and one or more second frequencies of the second channel (ASTERJADHI: ¶66, the frequency difference of channel 1 and 5 are different than channels 1 and 9 or channel 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 4, 13, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG modified by ASTERJADHI discloses system of claim 2/11, wherein the circuitry is further configured to establish a connection via a network with the first access point of the first channel (FUJIKAMI: ¶2, ¶41, LAN local area network).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YI modified by LEE modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/10, further in view of NEELISETTY et al (US 20170064619).
Regarding claim 7, 16, YI modified by LEE modified by DONG discloses system of claim 1/10 by remains silent regarding determining, responsive to connection to a network, a first location of a device comprising the circuitry; and transmit, responsive to determination that the device has moved from the first location to a second location, one or more third signals to discover one or more third access points.
However, NEELISETTY et al (US 20170064619) discloses determining, responsive to connection to a network, a first location of a device comprising the circuitry; and transmitting, responsive to determination that the device has moved from the first location to a second location, one or more third signals to discover one or more third access points (NEELISETTY: ¶58, the change of location initiates the probe request transmissions again (third signals) to newer/closer APs).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of NEELISETTY as it provides a way to constantly update for the best available APs (¶58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify invention of YI modified by LEE modified by DONG with teachings of NEELISETTY in order to improve quality of communication and reduce errors and drop calls.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
606
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
54
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
194
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”
YI, in Fig. 9, expressly discloses that the response is received within the time of the probe request’s dwelling in the network i.e. the response for the first prob request is received within a time allowed by the first probe request response wait time. YI remains silent regarding the probe request being transmitted on the first channel and the response being received on the first channel.
However, the newly cited reference LEE et al (US 2016/0373914) discloses the probe request being transmitted on the first channel and the response being received on the first channel (LEE: ¶143, the response frame is sent in the same channel as the probe request transmission channel).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “…circuitry maintains channel specific handling of the request and the response, including checking for and receiving the response on the first channel, without introducing any delay at the access point of redirection of the response to a different channel…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The “dwell time” of the first probe request is not specifically defined other than the probe request and its response within a valid wait time. Also, this time happens to include, according to Fig. 9, the remaining probe requests (i.e. the all the requests are being transmitted within this time which is between the probe request transmission and its response being received.
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of YI would have been motivated to use the teachings of LEE as it provides a way to improve channel reuse and conservation of radio resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of YI with teachings of LEE in order to improve channel resource utilization.
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 OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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 D 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights