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 .
Domestic Priority
Based upon the disclosure in U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/489,301 and the claims of the current application, said claims do not appear to be supported by the U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/489,301 and Examiner is treating 04 March 2024 as the effective filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 01 March 2024, 08 August 2024, 05 August 2025, and 08 August 2025, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 01 March 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 01 March 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, Claim 14, and Claim 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites to determine “that a new AP actor provides a station (STA) actor enhanced characteristics”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “determining that a new AP actor provides, to a station (STA) actor, enhanced characteristics”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, Claim 14, and Claim 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites to transfer “at least some of data wherein the at least some data includes one or more of medium access control service data units (MSDUs), aggregated-MSDUs (A-MSDUs), medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs), and/or aggregated-MPDUs from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “at least some of data, wherein the at least some data includes one or more of medium access control service data units (MSDUs), aggregated-MSDUs (A-MSDUs), medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs), and/or aggregated-MPDUs from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to”. Here, the recitation, “instructions”, is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. (US 20240334275 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Gundavelli”) in view of He et al. (US 20060083201 A1; hereinafter referred to as “He”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 13, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the method of claim 1.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the transferring the one or more of MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs occurs before, during, and/or after a roam point (¶21-22 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3, He further discloses that that the tunnel is established prior to the formal transfer of the mobile unit from the first access point 12a to the second access point 12b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of He by requiring that the transferring the one or more of MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs occurs before, during, and/or after a roam point as taught by He because the duration of time corresponding to handing over from an old access point to a new access point is improved (He, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 14, Gundavelli discloses a system comprising:
a storage configured to store instructions (¶24-25 & Fig. 1, Gundavelli discloses an access point (AP) comprising memory 135 storing program instructions);
a processor configured to execute the instructions and cause the processor (¶24-25 & Fig. 1, Gundavelli discloses the AP further comprising a central processing unit (CPU) 130 coupled to the memory 135 where the CPU is configured to execute the program instructions to cause the AP to perform a method) to:
determine that a new AP actor provides a station (STA) actor enhanced characteristics as compared to an existing AP actor (¶36 & ¶48-50 & Fig. 3 (310), Gundavelli discloses determining, by an old access point (AP) 201, that a station (STA) will disassociate from the old AP 201 and associated with a new AP 202 in response to reception, by the AP, of a disassociation notice based upon a determination, by the STA, that the new AP 202 has better signal strength or network congestion than the old AP 201), wherein the enhanced characteristics include one or more of a stronger connection, lower congestion, and/or increased bandwidth (¶36 & ¶50 & Fig. 3 (310), Gundavelli discloses that the determination, by the STA, that the old AP 202 has better signal strength or network congestion than the old AP 201);
transfer required state from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor (¶49 & ¶52 & Fig. 3 (305->315), Gundavelli discloses transferring a state of exchanging packet(s) with the STA to a state of transmitting its buffered packets to the new AP 202 such that the new AP can exchange packet(s) with the STA); and
transfer at least some of data (¶53-55 & Fig. 3 (325->330->335), Gundavelli discloses transmitting, by the old AP 201 to the new AP 202, the packet(s)).
However, Gundavelli does not disclose wherein the at least some data includes one or more of medium access control service data units (MSDUs), aggregated-MSDUs (A-MSDUs), medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs), and/or aggregated-MPDUs from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least some data includes one or more of medium access control service data units (MSDUs), aggregated-MSDUs (A-MSDUs), medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs), and/or aggregated-MPDUs from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor (¶40 & Fig. 5 (524), He discloses that data will be forwarded from the old access point to the new access point. ¶44 & ·¶27, He further discloses that the data includes a media access control (MAC) protocol data units (MPDUs)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli by requiring that the at least some data includes one or more of medium access control service data units (MSDUs), aggregated-MSDUs (A-MSDUs), medium access control protocol data units (MPDUs), and/or aggregated-MPDUs from the existing AP actor to the new AP actor as taught by He because the duration of time corresponding to handing over from an old access point to a new access point is improved (He, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 15, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the system of claim 14.
Gundavelli further discloses wherein the transfer required state includes transferring all required states (¶49 & ¶52 & Fig. 3 (305->315), Gundavelli discloses transferring a state of exchanging packet(s) with the STA to a state of transmitting its buffered packets to the new AP 202 such that the new AP can exchange packet(s) with the STA).
Regarding Claim 16, Gundavelii in view of He discloses the system of claim 14.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the transfer of the at least some data includes transferring all queued data (¶40 & Fig. 5 (524) & ¶27-28, He discloses that data will be transferred from the old access point to the new access point until a reassociation occurs), wherein the queued data is one or more of MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs (¶44 & ·¶27, He further discloses that the data includes a media access control (MAC) protocol data units (MPDUs)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of He by requiring that the transfer of the at least some data includes transferring all queued data where the queued data is one or more of MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs as taught by He because the duration of time corresponding to handing over from an old access point to a new access point is improved (He, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 17, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the system of claim 14.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to: establish at least one tunnel between the existing AP actor and the new AP actor (¶34-37 & Fig. 5, He further discloses that a tunnel is established between the new access point and the old access point).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of He by requiring that the processor is further configured to execute instructions to: establish at least one tunnel between the existing AP actor and the new AP actor as taught by He because the duration of time corresponding to handing over from an old access point to a new access point is improved (He, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 18, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the system of claim 17.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to:
establish a queue of incoming MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs at the new AP actor (¶52 & ¶44 & ¶27, He further discloses that a queue corresponding to a second 802.11 MAC of the new access point is established for reception of MPDUs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of He by establishing a queue of incoming MSDUs, A-MSDUs, MPDUs, and/or A-MPDUs at the new AP actor as taught by He because the duration of time corresponding to handing over from an old access point to a new access point is improved (He, ¶9).
Regarding Claim 19, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the system of claim 18.
He, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to:
establish an additional tunnel to transmit a MPDU queue from the existing AP actor to a new MPDU queue on the new AP actor (¶52 & ¶44 & ¶27, He further discloses that a queue corresponding to a first 802.11 MAC of the old access point is established for transmission of MPDUs), wherein the new MPDU queue is initially empty (¶52 & ¶44 & ¶27, He further discloses that a queue corresponding to the second 802.11 MAC of the new access point is established for reception of MPDUs from the old AP. Here, the queue corresponding to the new AP would be initially empty because there is no relationship between the mobile unit and the new AP prior to the disassociation).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli in view of He in further view of Fang et al. (US 20250330822 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Fang”).
Regarding Claim 10, Gundavelli in view of He discloses the method of claim 9.
However, Gundavelli in view of He does not disclose wherein a multi-link device (MLD) of the existing AP actor stops, after the roam point, accepting incoming data.
Fang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a multi-link device (MLD) of the existing AP actor stops, after the roam point, accepting incoming data (¶324 & ¶329 & Fig. 6 (610->614), Fang discloses that a current access point (AP) 602 stops accepting incoming data transmission from the fast transition originator (FTO) station (STA) after transmitting a FT Request. Examiner correlates the “roam point” to transmitting the FT request to the target AP. ¶99, Fang discloses that the current AP is a multi-link device (MLD) AP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of He by requiring that a multi-link device (MLD) of the existing AP actor stops, after the roam point, accepting incoming data as taught by Fang because a time that connectivity is lost between a STA and a Distribution System (DS) during a BSS transition is reduced (Fang, ¶139).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474