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 § 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, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry et al (US 2018/0070295).
Regarding independent claim 1, Henry teaches a method comprising: determining a client is going to roam to a new Access Point (AP) ([0027], [0038] and [0042]); and in response to determining the client is going to roam to a new AP: determining an estimated path of the client ([0027], [0038] and [0042]), determining one or more candidate APs based at least in part on the estimated path ([0027], [0038] and [0042]), determining probabilities of roaming to the one or more candidate APs based at least in part on the estimated path ([0027], [0038] and [0042], “likelihood”), generating a directional neighbor report including a list of the one or more candidate APs and the probabilities ([0027], [0038] and [0042]), and transmitting the directional neighbor report to the client ([0027], [0038] and [0042]). See also fig. 2.
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the claims are the corresponding apparatus claims and recite similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, Henry further teaches wherein determining the client is going to roam to the new AP is based on any one of (i) receiving a neighbor report request from the client, (ii) determining the client is moving outside a range of a connected AP, or (iii) a combination of (i) and (ii). See fig. 2 and [0027], [0038] and [0042].
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 10, Henry further teaches wherein determining the estimated path of the client comprises considering roaming patterns of the client, including any one of: (i) a sequence of APs the client has connected to, (ii) a movement speed of the client, (iii) a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) variation over time, or (iv) any combination of (i)-(iii). See [0025] and [0027].
Regarding dependent claims 6, 12 and 20, Henry further teaches wherein determining the probabilities of roaming to the one or more candidate APs comprises assigning weights to the one or more candidate APs indicating the probabilities. See [0009] and [0028].
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 of this title, 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 3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2018/0070295) in view of Paredes Cabrera (US 2023/0140473) or Henry et al (US 20200008169).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 14 and 17, Henry teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach determining the estimated path of the client comprises utilizing an artificial intelligence algorithm (AI). However, using AI for estimating likely path of a UE/client device is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Paredes Cabrera or Henry, from the same field of endeavor, teaches using for estimating path or direction of a device. See Paredes Cabrera: [0041] and [0119] or Henry: [0023], [0033] and [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Henry by employing the teachings as taught by Paredes Cabrera or Henry in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 11, 13, 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Cao et al (US 2014/0098682) and Kumar et al (US 2022/0116838) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for performing handover in network communications. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 5, 7, 11, 13, 18 and 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights