DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 18 February 2026, having claims 1-22 (claims 5-11 and 16-22 are withdrawn from consideration) and drawing figures 1-7.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 12-15 in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The colon (:) added after the word “of” in line 11 of claim 1 is unnecessary and must be deleted to conform with English punctuation rules.
The colon (:) added after the word “of” in line 9 of claim 12 is unnecessary and must be deleted to conform with English punctuation rules.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almelkar et al. (US 2025/0081053 A1) in view of Gonzalez et al. (WO 2015/055871 A1) (an English translation of the document is provided; page numbers refer to pages of the translated document).
For claims 1 and 12, Almelkar discloses a computing device (Fig 2, 104) comprising: a communications interface (Fig 2, 208) configured to connect to a network deployed by a plurality of base stations (Fig 1 shows device 104 in a network comprising home base station 120 and foreign base stations 124-1 and 124-2);
a controller (Fig 2, 212) for the communications interface, the controller configured to:
in response to a scan condition, select a foreign channel to scan, the foreign channel having a corresponding foreign base station configured to emit a beacon signal ([0025] when a signal strength for the home access point falls below a threshold, the UE scans foreign channels for target foreign candidate access points (base stations)), move to the selected foreign channel ([0025] the UE moves “off-channel” to perform the scan, meaning the UE leaves its home channel to perform the scan in the foreign channel); detect and in response to identifying the foreign base station, return to a home channel ([0026] after a predefined scan duration and after identifying one or more foreign base stations, the UE returns to the home channel).
For claims 1 and 12, Almelkar does not expressly disclose broadcast a scan initiation notification to prompt a secondary device connected on the foreign channel to emit a secondary beacon signal; one of: the beacon signal and the secondary beacon signal to identify the foreign base station; and in response to identifying the foreign base station, return to a home channel.
Gonzalez, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches broadcast a scan initiation notification to prompt a secondary device connected on the foreign channel to emit a secondary beacon signal of: the beacon signal and the secondary beacon signal to identify the foreign base station (page 14, during passive scan, the UE detects one or more beacon signals from one or more access points (base stations), and during active scan, the UE sends a probe request frame (broadcast scan initiation signal) to one or more foreign access points and receives a response frame from the one or more access points (base stations); based on the result of the passive or active scan, the UE identifies a target base station). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement foreign channel scanning method of Gonzalez in the communication network of Almelkar at the time of the invention to allow the UE to detect a target base station based on a passive scan or active scan.
For claims 2 and 13, Almelkar discloses the scan initiation notification includes an identifier of the selected foreign channel ([0040] the selected target access point(s) is identified prior to scanning initiation).
6. Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almelkar et al. (US 2025/0081053 A1) in view of Gonzalez et al. (WO 2015/055871 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Neelisetty et al. (US 2017/0064619 A1).
For claims 3 and 14, Almelkar does not expressly disclose returning to the home base station, broadcasting a scan termination notification.
Neelisetty, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches returning to the home base station, broadcasting a scan termination notification ([0040] in anticipation of terminating the scan, the UE notifies all neighboring APs by broadcast message to delay sending probe responses for a delay period and the UE terminates the scanning period when the delay period expires). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to broadcast a scan termination notice to neighboring APs after returning to home base station (or access point) in the modified system of Almelkar and Gonzalez based on the teachings of Neelisetty at the time of the invention.
For claims 4 and 15, Neelisetty discloses broadcasting the scan initiation notification via a secondary communications protocol ([0040] the interference level of BT (Bluetooth protocol) and WLAN signals is reduced when the BT transceiver 222 is used to scan for scanning foreign channels).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471