DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 19 December 2025.
Claims 1-18 are under examination.
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 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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US Pub. 2013/0294353), as recited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses “performing a first scan according to first scan execution parameters”, “in response to detecting a conflict between the second scan and the first scan, determining a prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan,” and “updating at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameter.” Zhang teaches performing active scanning using MLME-SCAN parameters (¶0003; ¶0028; ¶0077), detecting conflicts between scanning operations due to collisions of management frames (¶0112), determining prioritization parameters such as AC_FILS EDCA rules and contention-window values (¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254), and modifying scanning behavior including stopping or switching scans (¶0165–¶0166). However, in this embodiment Zhang does not disclose “while performing the first scan, receiving a request for a second scan” or “proceeding with the first scan according to the first scan execution parameters and proceeding with the second scan according to the second scan execution parameters.” In an alternate embodiment, Zhang teaches receiving an additional scan request during an ongoing scan (¶0003; ¶0077; ¶0193) and resuming or transitioning scanning based on updated ScanStopType parameters (¶0166; ¶0254). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine these complementary teachings to manage conflicting scans, consistent with the principles of KSR. Thus claim 1 is obvious over Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective target media access control (MAC) chains for the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches prioritization based on MAC-layer parameters including MAC addresses, SSIDs, and AC_FILS EDCA chains used to differentiate scan behaviors (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to treat these as respective target MAC chains.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses “determining whether the respective target MAC chains for the first scan and the second scan conflict; and when the respective target MAC chains do not conflict, maintaining the first scan execution parameters and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” Zhang teaches identifying MAC-layer conflicts and allowing additional scanning operations when no conflict is detected (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to apply this logic to MAC chains of two scans.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective scan patterns for the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang describes different scanning patterns, including active-scan patterns and FILS-based scan timing patterns, used in prioritization (¶0077; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses “when both the first scan and the second scan have regular scan patterns, offsetting respective start times of the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches adjusting beacon intervals, sub-intervals, and timing offsets to avoid collisions between concurrent scan-related operations (¶0232; ¶0228; ¶0166). Offsetting start times would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises a collision counter for a scan type of the second scan.” Zhang teaches detecting collisions and maintaining metrics associated with prioritizing scan types based on collision conditions (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232). A collision counter would have been an obvious implementation.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further discloses “incrementing the collision counter; comparing the collision counter to a threshold collision value for the first scan; and when the collision counter exceeds the threshold collision value, updating the first scan execution parameters to terminate the first scan and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” Zhang teaches updating scanning behavior or terminating scans when threshold collision conditions are met using MLME-Scan-STOP (¶0165–¶0166) and prioritizing FILS frames based on threshold conditions (¶0228; ¶0253). Using a counter and threshold comparison would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses “when additional prioritization criteria are detected, defining a further prioritization value; and further incrementing the collision counter to the threshold collision value prior to comparing the collision counter to the threshold collision value.” Zhang teaches multiple prioritization criteria—including EDCA parameters, AC_FILS, SSID/MAC-address targeting, and beacon-interval priority—that influence conflict resolution (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254). It would have been obvious to incorporate these into an adjusted prioritization value affecting the collision counter.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang further discloses “when the collision counter does not exceed the threshold collision value, maintaining the first scan execution parameters and defining the second scan execution parameters to reject the second scan.” Zhang teaches that when collision conditions are below priority thresholds, ongoing scanning continues and lower-priority scanning requests are postponed or rejected (¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses “a computing device comprising: a communications interface configured to perform scans; a controller for the communications interface, the controller configured to: control the communications interface to perform a first scan according to first scan execution parameters; while performing the first scan, receive a request for a second scan; in response to detecting a conflict between the second scan and the first scan, determine a prioritization parameter for at least one of the first scan and the second scan; update at least one of the first scan execution parameters and second scan execution parameters based on the prioritization parameter; and proceed with the first scan according to the first scan execution parameters and proceeding with the second scan according to the second scan execution parameters.” Zhang teaches a WTRU or AP with a communications interface and control logic that performs scanning (¶0031–¶0032), performs a first scan (¶0003; ¶0028; ¶0077), receives additional scan requests (¶0003; ¶0077; ¶0193), determines prioritization parameters for resolving scanning conflicts (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254), and updates scan behavior using modified contention parameters or MLME-Scan-STOP messages (¶0165–¶0166; ¶0254). Although not all features appear in a single embodiment, combining these complementary mechanisms to manage conflicting scans would have been obvious under KSR.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective target media access control (MAC) chains for the first scan and the second scan.” As described in claim 2, Zhang teaches MAC-based prioritization including MAC-address targeting and AC_FILS chains (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses “determine whether the respective target MAC chains for the first scan and the second scan conflict; and when the respective target MAC chains do not conflict, maintain the first scan execution parameters and define the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” As described in claim 3, Zhang teaches conflict detection and non-conflict continuation (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises respective scan patterns for the first scan and the second scan.” As described in claim 4, Zhang teaches distinct scan patterns used for prioritization (¶0077; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses “when both the first scan and the second scan have regular scan patterns, offsetting respective start times of the first scan and the second scan.” Zhang teaches offsetting timing to avoid collisions (¶0232; ¶0228; ¶0166).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses “the prioritization parameter comprises a collision counter for a scan type of the second scan.” As described in claim 6, collision-based prioritization is taught (¶0112; ¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0232).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses “increment the collision counter; compare the collision counter to a threshold collision value for the first scan; and when the collision counter exceeds the threshold collision value, update the first scan execution parameters to terminate the first scan and defining the second scan execution parameters to initiate the second scan.” As described in claim 7, Zhang teaches threshold-based termination and initiation using MLME-Scan-STOP (¶0165–¶0166; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses “when additional prioritization criteria are detected, define a further prioritization value; and further increment the collision counter to the threshold collision value prior to comparing the collision counter to the threshold collision value.” As described in claim 8, Zhang shows additional prioritization criteria affecting threshold behavior (¶0117; ¶0213; ¶0232; ¶0253–¶0254).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses “when the collision counter does not exceed the threshold collision value, maintain the first scan execution parameters and define the second scan execution parameters to reject the second scan.” As described in claim 9, Zhang teaches maintaining existing scan parameters and rejecting lower-priority scans when conditions do not exceed thresholds (¶0213; ¶0228; ¶0253).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-0734. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468