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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2024 and 06/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8; “…responsive to the second link quality satisfy a third threshold …” should read as “…responsive to the second link quality satisfying a third threshold …”.
In claim 18; “…the peer to peer wireless communication link link in response to the request…” should read as “…the peer to peer wireless communication link in response to the request…”.
In claim 21; “…the second wireless communication link in response reception…” should read as “…the second wireless communication link in response to reception…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 15, 22 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villasenor (US 20160066247 A1) hereinafter Villasenor.
Regarding claim 1,
Villasenor teaches a first wireless communication device (Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 [0045]-[0047]; Fig. 3), comprising: processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (comprising interconnected processor 58 and memory 68 [0045]-[0049]; Fig. 3), the processing system configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, while in communication with a second wireless communication device on a peer to peer wireless communication link and from an access point associated with the second wireless communication device, an internet protocol address for the first wireless communication device for a second wireless communication link between the first wireless communication device and the access point (obtaining an IP address from the access point AP 12 while the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 is connected to Wi-Fi/WFD base 2 via peer-to-peer link 6 and AP 12 via Wi-Fi link. The IP address being a valid enterprise IP address of the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 and is used for the active Wi-Fi link 16 between Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 and AP 12 [0064]-[0065] and [0083]-[0084]; Figs. 5-8); responsive to a first link quality of the peer to peer wireless communication link falling below a first threshold (when the RSSI drops below threshold_1 [0064] and [0083]; Figs. 5-8), communicate a roaming indication with the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link (communicating a message to the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 indicating handoff via peer-to-peer link [0058] and [0065]; Figs. 5-8); and responsive to the roaming indication, communicate data with the second wireless communication device via the second wireless communication link and the access point (upon reception of the handoff message, redirecting audio data through the Wi-Fi link 18 via AP 12 [0066]-[0067]; Figs. 5-8).
Claims [15] “second wireless communication device”, [22] “first wireless communication device method” and [36] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [1] “first wireless communication device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 16, 23, 24, 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasenor in view of Akhi et al. (US 20160021586 A1) hereinafter Akhi.
Regarding claim 2,
Villasenor teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Villasenor further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the first link quality dropping below a threshold, perform an association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address (upon the RSSI of the peer-to-peer link falling below a threshold, proceeding to connect to the Wi-Fi enterprise network [0064]-[0067]; Figs. 5-8).
Villasenor does not explicitly teach first link quality dropping below a second threshold.
Akhi teaches first link quality dropping below a second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength measured in relation to one or more thresholds for determining channel transition [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akhi to the teachings of Villasenor. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow efficient channel transition (Akhi [0002]).
Regarding claim 3,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Villasenor does not explicitly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a message indicating that the first link quality dropped below the second threshold.
Akhi teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a message indicating that the first link quality dropped (peer-to-peer link strength measurement obtained through a measurement request received from other peer-to-peer devices [0014] and [0019]) below the second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength in relation to one or more thresholds [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akhi to the teachings of Villasenor. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow efficient channel transition (Akhi [0002]).
Regarding claim 9,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above.
Villasenor further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: transmit an indication of the internet protocol address or a medium access control address of the first wireless communication device to the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link (handoff message sent to the Wi-Fi/WFD base 2 through the peer-to-peer link indicating enterprise IP address of the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 [0064]-[0065] and [0083]-[0084]; Figs. 5-8).
Claims [16] “second wireless communication device”, [24] “first wireless communication device method” and [37] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [3] “first wireless communication device”.
Claim [23] “first wireless communication device method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [2] “first wireless communication device”.
Claim [30] “first wireless communication device method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [9] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims 4, 7-8, 10, 17, 25, 28-29, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasenor and Akhi in further view of Tailor et al. (US 20160081009) hereinafter Tailor.
Regarding claim 4,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 3, as outlined above, where Villasenor further teaches the second device having a serving access point (the Wi-Fi/WFD base 2 connected to one or more Wi-Fi access points AP 12 [0055]).
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, with the message, an indication of an access point for the second wireless communication device.
Tailor teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, with the message, an indication of an access point for the second wireless communication device (client device receiving AP information from BLE beacons associated with the APs, where the information includes RSSI [0027]-[0038] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Tailor to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow quicker roaming (Tailor [0027]).
Regarding claim 7,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above, where Villasenor teaches receive the internet protocol address (obtaining an IP address from the access point AP 12 while the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 is connected to Wi-Fi/WFD base 2 via peer-to-peer link 6 and AP 12 via Wi-Fi link [0064]-[0065] and [0083]-[0084]; Figs. 5-8), and Akhi teaches determining if first link quality drops below the second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength in relation to one or more thresholds [0019]).
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the link quality dropping below the threshold, receive a beacon from the access point on the second wireless communication link; determine a second link quality of the second wireless communication link using the beacon; and responsive to the second link quality satisfying a third threshold, perform the association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address.
Tailor teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the link quality dropping below the threshold, receive a beacon from the access point on the second wireless communication link (when link quality deteriorates, the client device passively scans beacons from the AP [0022]-[0023]); determine a second link quality of the second wireless communication link using the beacon (performing an evaluation algorithm [0022]-[0023]); and responsive to the second link quality satisfying a third threshold, perform the association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address (choosing the best AP based on the signal quality measured from the beacons [0005] and [0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Tailor to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow quicker roaming (Tailor [0027]).
Regarding claim 8,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above, where Villasenor teaches receive the internet protocol address (obtaining an IP address from the access point AP 12 while the Wi-Fi/WFD device 4 is connected to Wi-Fi/WFD base 2 via peer-to-peer link 6 and AP 12 via Wi-Fi link [0064]-[0065] and [0083]-[0084]; Figs. 5-8), and Akhi teaches determining if first link quality drops below the second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength in relation to one or more thresholds [0019]).
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the link quality dropping below the threshold, transmit a probe request to the access point; responsive to the probe request, receive, from the access point, a probe response; determine a second link quality of the second wireless communication link using the probe response; and responsive to the second link quality satisfy a third threshold, perform the association procedure with the access point.
Tailor teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the link quality dropping below the threshold ,transmit a probe request to the access point (when link quality deteriorates, the client device actively scan by transmitting a probe request to the AP [0022]-[0023]); responsive to the probe request, receive, from the access point, a probe response (getting probe responses from the AP as result of the probe request [0022]-[0023]); and responsive to the second link quality satisfy a third threshold, perform the association procedure with the access point (choosing the best AP based on the signal quality measured from the beacons [0005] and [0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Tailor to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow quicker roaming (Tailor [0027]).
Regarding claim 10,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above, where Akhi teaches responsive to the first link quality dropping below the second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength in relation to one or more thresholds [0019]).
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach transmit, to a third wireless communication device on a Bluetooth wireless communication link between the first wireless communication device and the third wireless communication device, an indication of the access point.
Tailor teaches transmit, to a third wireless communication device on a Bluetooth wireless communication link between the first wireless communication device and the third wireless communication device, an indication of the access point (client device sending scan/roam tables to BLE beacon modules, where the tables include BSSID for one or more APs [0026]-[0038] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Tailor to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow quicker roaming (Tailor [0027]).
Claims [17] “second wireless communication device”, [25] “first wireless communication device method” and [38] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [4] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims [28-29] “first wireless communication device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [7-8] “first wireless communication device”.
Claim [31] “first wireless communication device method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [10] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims 5, 6, 18, 19, 26, 27, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasenor and Akhi in further view of Jang et al. (US 20140135019) hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 5,
Villasenor and Akhi teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above, where Akhi teaches determining if first link quality drops below the second threshold (peer-to-peer link strength in relation to one or more thresholds [0019]), and the association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address (obtaining an IP address from the access point AP 12 by connecting to the Wi-Fi enterprise network [0064]-[0067]; Figs. 5-8).
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the first link quality dropping below the second threshold, transmit to the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a request for channel scan results associated with the second wireless communication link; receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link in response to the request, a channel scan result associated with the second wireless communication link; and responsive to the channel scan result indicating a second link quality of the second wireless communication link satisfies a third threshold, perform association.
Jang teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: responsive to the first link quality dropping below the second threshold (determining if D2D link quality is decreased to or less than a predetermined threshold [0111] and [0126]; elements S501 and S601 of Figs. 5 and 6), transmit to the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a request for channel scan results associated with the second wireless communication link (sending a scanning indication to device B on the D2D link [0113]; elements S505 and S603 of Figs. 5 and 6); receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link in response to the request, a channel scan result associated with the second wireless communication link (in response to the scanning indication, receiving from device B a channel list for neighboring devices in a device report [0115]; elements S509 and S607 of Figs. 5 and 6); and responsive to the channel scan result indicating a second link quality of the second wireless communication link satisfies a third threshold, perform the association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address (in response to the device report, selecting a relay with channel quality exceeding a threshold [0115]-[0117]; elements S513 and S611 of Figs. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable communication between two devices through a base station (Jang [0002]).
Regarding claim 6,
Villasenor and Akhi and Jang teach all the features of claim 5, as outlined above.
Villasenor and Akhi do not explicitly teach wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link in response to the request, a set of channel scan results for a set of wireless communication links corresponding to a set of access points, the set of access points including the access point; and select the access point from the set of access points in response to the set of channel scan results.
Jang teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless communication device to: receive, from the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link in response to the request, a set of channel scan results for a set of wireless communication links corresponding to a set of access points, the set of access points including the access point (in response to the scanning indication, receiving from device B a channel list for neighboring devices in a device report [0115]; elements S509 and S607 of Figs. 5 and 6); and select the access point from the set of access points in response to the set of channel scan results (in response to the device report, selecting a relay with channel quality exceeding a threshold from the list [0115]-[0117]; elements S513 and S611 of Figs. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Villasenor and Akhi. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable communication between two devices through a base station (Jang [0002]).
Claims [18 and 19] “second wireless communication device”, [26 and 27] “first wireless communication device method” and [39 and 40] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [5 and 6] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims 11-13, 20, 32-34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasenor in view of Jang et al. (US 20140135019) hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 11,
Villasenor teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Villasenor does not explicitly teach communicate, with the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a disassociation message in response to the roaming indication.
Jang teaches communicate, with the second wireless communication device on the peer to peer wireless communication link, a disassociation message in response to the roaming indication (device A sending a handover indication message to device B in response to the scan indication [0119]; element S519 and S617 of Figs. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Villasenor. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable communication between two devices through a base station (Jang [0002]).
Regarding claim 12,
Villasenor teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, where Villasenor further teaches an association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address (proceeding to connect to the Wi-Fi enterprise network [0064]-[0067]; Figs. 5-8).
Villasenor does not explicitly teach determine, in accordance with a utility function, that a second link quality of the second wireless communication link is better than the first link quality; and perform an association procedure with the access point to receive the internet protocol address in response to the determination that the second link quality is better than the first link quality.
Jang teaches determine, in accordance with a utility function, that a second link quality of the second wireless communication link is better than the first link quality (determining how direct D2D communication link quality compares D2D communication through relay [0085]); and perform a procedure in response to the determination that the second link quality is better than the first link quality (determining how direct D2D communication link quality compares D2D communication through relay in relation to one or more thresholds [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Villasenor. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable communication between two devices through a base station (Jang [0002]).
Regarding claim 13,
Villasenor and Jang teach all the features of claim 12, as outlined above.
Villasenor does not explicitly teach the utility function includes at least one of a channel type for each of the peer to peer wireless communication link and the second wireless communication link, a received signal strength indicator value for each of the peer to peer wireless communication link and the second wireless communication link.
Jang teaches the utility function includes at least one of a channel type for each of the peer to peer wireless communication link and the second wireless communication link, a received signal strength indicator value for each of the peer to peer wireless communication link and the second wireless communication link (determining how direct D2D communication link quality compares D2D communication through relay in relation to one or more thresholds [0085]), and a bias factor for the peer to peer wireless communication link.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Jang to the teachings of Villasenor. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enable communication between two devices through a base station (Jang [0002]).
Claims [32-34] “first wireless communication device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [11-13] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims [20] “second wireless communication device” and [41] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [11] “first wireless communication device”.
Claims 14, 21, 35 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villasenor and Jang in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20240340986) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 14,
Villasenor and Jang teach all the features of claim 12, as outlined above.
Villasenor and Jang do not explicitly teach switch a channel of the peer to peer wireless communication link to a same channel as the second wireless communication link in response to the association procedure.
Zhang teaches switch a channel of the peer to peer wireless communication link to a same channel as the second wireless communication link in response to the association procedure (switching to the same frequency band as the wifi channel [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Villasenor and Jang. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance transmission in a collaborative setting (Zhang [0003]-[0004]).
Claims [21] “second wireless communication device”, [35] “first wireless communication device method” and [42] “second device method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [11] “first wireless communication device”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465