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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed June 9, 2026 has been considered. The reply states that the claim listing is supplied for completeness and that no amendment is made to the claims. Claims 1–20 remain pending and unchanged. This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the June 9, 2026 reply have been considered. The prior rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over IEEE Std 802.11-2020 in view of Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7 is withdrawn and replaced by the grounds below. The new evidence is not attributed to the prior rejection.
Applicant argues that an AP-originated channel switch announcement and generic P2P peer signaling do not disclose a channel switch request received from the second device that causes the first device to trigger the CS mechanism. The distinction is acknowledged. Hareuveni expressly teaches a post-connection request action frame sent by the GC to the GO ([0084], [0095]–[0097]), followed upon acceptance by GO-transmitted CSA/eCSA beacons scheduling the requested channel move ([0100]). The new ground therefore identifies both directions and the causal relationship in one reference, rather than equating an announcement with a request. The mappings for claims 1, 17, and 19 below maintain the correct transmitting and receiving device roles.
Regarding section D, applicant argues that the earlier combination would change the principle of operation, undermine coordination and reliability, and render the system inoperable by transferring AP/GO control to a client. Hareuveni retains the GO’s authority to accept or refuse the client’s request ([0082], [0100]–[0101]). The client proposes a channel; the GO makes the channel decision and announces the accepted change. Accordingly, the new request mechanism does not require relinquishing owner control. The dependent-claim combinations likewise retain the GO for each group. For the FST combinations, Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly permits a GO to use FST with one or more clients, while Cordeiro supplies the acknowledgment-based completion and return behavior. Thus the cited compatibility evidence and mappings address the asserted coordination and operability concerns. Applicant challenges the earlier rationale of improving responsiveness as conclusory and inconsistent with centralized control and DFS operation. That rationale is not carried forward. Claims 1, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on Hareuveni’s disclosed accepted-request embodiment, without combining IEEE and Wi-Fi P2P to supply the request. For the dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, the separate rationales below identify the specific benefit of each modification: supporting concurrent group memberships, reducing concurrent-channel overhead, confirming the peer’s target-channel reachability, or recovering a link after failed confirmation. The no-radar condition of claim 12 is separately addressed as performance-driven operation without requiring a radar event; no disregard of mandatory radar procedures is proposed.
Applicant argues that the original ground reconstructs the invention by adding generic P2P signaling to IEEE channel switching. The replacement anticipation ground relies on Hareuveni’s express client-request/owner-announcement sequence, not that inference. Each dependent-claim combination identifies the teaching missing from the preceding reference or combination, the additional reference teaching, and the technical reason for applying it. For claims 10 and 14, the placement of Galanis’s management-frame test after Cordeiro’s return, and the use of ACK failure to restart the coordinated GO procedure, are expressly identified as modifications. They are not mischaracterized as a complete sequence expressly disclosed by Galanis.
Applicant requests allowance of independent claims 1, 17, and 19 and of their dependents based on the asserted missing request relationship. Although the earlier grounds are withdrawn, Hareuveni supplies that relationship as explained above. The following grounds separately address every pending claim, including all inherited limitations and each additional dependent limitation. Consequently, the request for allowance is not adopted on this record. The new grounds are set forth in this non-final action to permit a response.
References and Claim Interpretation
Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 (Hareuveni).
Leonardo William Estevez et al., US 9,706,600 B2, issued July 11, 2017 (Estevez).
Prakash Chaki et al., WO 2017/037766 A1, published March 9, 2017 (Chaki).
Bu-Seop Jung, EP 3 833 151 A1, published June 9, 2021 (Jung).
Cordeiro and Trainin, US 8,654,746 B2, issued February 18, 2014 (Cordeiro).
Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7, July 6, 2016 (Wi-Fi P2P).
Dimitrios Galanis et al., US 8,861,492 B2, issued October 14, 2014 (Galanis).
Hareuveni is applied under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) based on its December 29, 2022 U.S. filing date, preceding the March 31, 2023 claimed priority date. The remaining references were published before that priority date and are applied under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
In claims 7–10 and 13–14, deciding whether to switch is construed as deciding whether to complete or maintain the operational transfer after the tentative target-channel exchange. The claim language places target-channel transmission before the decision, consistent with Figures 7–8 of the specification. The received MAC ACK is distinguished from the transmitted FST Ack Response management frame. GO/AP and GC/non-AP are the disclosed P2P functional roles.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 — 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) — Hareuveni
Claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023.
Regarding claim 1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 2, Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 2
“2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is an access point (AP) device, and the second wireless transceiver device is a non-access-point (non-AP) station (STA) device.”
Hareuveni teaches both device roles: [0081] identifies the GO as acting as the AP and the GC as the client; [0064] distinguishes the non-AP station from an AP. The first device is the GO/AP, and the second device is its GC/non-AP STA. The claim 1 method and its complete mapping are reproduced above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 3, Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 11
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 11
“11. The method of claim 1, wherein triggering the CS mechanism is performed by sending a channel switch announcement defined in IEEE 802.11 protocol, or other channel switch protocols pre-defined in the wireless communication system.”
Hareuveni teaches sending CSA/eCSA information in beacons to schedule the channel change. See [0084] and [0100]. This meets the channel-switch-announcement alternative; the claim does not require every alternative protocol to be used. The claim 1 request and triggered switch are mapped above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 15
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 15
“15. The method of claim 1, wherein the channel switch request is implemented by way of at least one channel-switching-related information element (IE).”
Hareuveni teaches the request action frame carrying channel-switching-related information elements, including a Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch IE. See [0095]–[0097]; [0096] permits P2P or IEEE IEs in the request payload. Thus at least one IE implements the channel switch request. The full inherited claim 1 method is mapped above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 16
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 16
“16. The method of claim 1, wherein the channel switch request is implemented by way of at least one first channel-switching-related information element (IE); and triggering the CS mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from the first channel to the target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device further comprises:”
Hareuveni teaches the first communication frame as the GC’s request action frame carrying the channel-switch-related IE, including the Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch IE ([0095]–[0097]). Hareuveni also teaches the GO-triggered subsequent channel move upon acceptance ([0084], [0100]). Those teachings meet both the first-IE implementation and the preceding CS relationship, with the full claim 1 method mapped above.
“sending, by the first wireless transceiver device, a second communication frame carrying at least one second channel-switching-related IE to the second wireless transceiver device, for informing the second wireless transceiver device to switch from the first channel to the target channel.”
Hareuveni teaches the first-device GO transmitting a beacon containing CSA/eCSA elements to the group, including the requesting second-device GC. The beacon is the second communication frame and its CSA/eCSA element is the second channel-switching-related IE; it identifies and schedules movement from the current operating channel to the target channel. See [0084] and [0100]. The accepted request and subsequent beacon announcement supply the stated order and direction.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 17
“17. A wireless transceiver device, for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device being one of multiple devices within the wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches machine 600 implementing the disclosed methods in an AP, STA, or peer role (Fig. 6; [0066]). For this claim, machine 600 is the GO in a wireless system containing the GO and its GC. The GO performs the request-driven operating-channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“a processing circuit, arranged to control operations of the wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches processor 602 in machine 600, executing instructions that implement and control the disclosed operations. See Fig. 6; [0066]–[0067]; and [0073]. Processor 602 is the processing circuit.
“at least one communication control circuit, coupled to the processing circuit, arranged to perform communication control, wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with another device among the multiple devices for the wireless transceiver device; wherein:”
Hareuveni teaches network interface 620 and wireless transceiver circuitry coupled with processor 602 through machine 600’s interconnection/bus 608, performing wireless communication through antennas 660. See Fig. 6; [0067], [0069], [0073]–[0076]. This interface/transceiver circuitry is the at least one communication control circuit. In the GO implementation it controls wireless communications with the GC, which is another of the system’s multiple devices. See [0080]–[0084].
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to receive a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the other device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GO receiving the GC’s post-connection channel-switch request in an action frame carrying the requested channel parameters. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100]. The GO is the claimed device, the GC is the other device, and the request action frame is the first communication frame.
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to trigger a channel switch (CS) mechanism, to inform the other device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the other device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GO, upon acceptance, scheduling and announcing the switch with CSA/eCSA beacons so the GC moves from the current operating channel to the requested target channel for continuing group communication. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. This is the accepted-request branch; the optional refusal branch in [0101] does not negate it.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 18
Limitations inherited from claim 17
“17. A wireless transceiver device, for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device being one of multiple devices within the wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches machine 600 implementing the disclosed methods in an AP, STA, or peer role (Fig. 6; [0066]). For this claim, machine 600 is the GO in a wireless system containing the GO and its GC. The GO performs the request-driven operating-channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“a processing circuit, arranged to control operations of the wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches processor 602 in machine 600, executing instructions that implement and control the disclosed operations. See Fig. 6; [0066]–[0067]; and [0073]. Processor 602 is the processing circuit.
“at least one communication control circuit, coupled to the processing circuit, arranged to perform communication control, wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with another device among the multiple devices for the wireless transceiver device; wherein:”
Hareuveni teaches network interface 620 and wireless transceiver circuitry coupled with processor 602 through machine 600’s interconnection/bus 608, performing wireless communication through antennas 660. See Fig. 6; [0067], [0069], [0073]–[0076]. This interface/transceiver circuitry is the at least one communication control circuit. In the GO implementation it controls wireless communications with the GC, which is another of the system’s multiple devices. See [0080]–[0084].
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to receive a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the other device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GO receiving the GC’s post-connection channel-switch request in an action frame carrying the requested channel parameters. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100]. The GO is the claimed device, the GC is the other device, and the request action frame is the first communication frame.
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to trigger a channel switch (CS) mechanism, to inform the other device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the other device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GO, upon acceptance, scheduling and announcing the switch with CSA/eCSA beacons so the GC moves from the current operating channel to the requested target channel for continuing group communication. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. This is the accepted-request branch; the optional refusal branch in [0101] does not negate it.
Additional limitations of claim 18
“18. The wireless transceiver device of claim 17, wherein the wireless transceiver device is an access point (AP) device, and the other device is a non-access-point (non-AP) station (STA) device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GO acting as AP and the GC as client ([0081]), with non-AP station terminology in [0064]. The claim 17 machine is the GO/AP, while the other device is its GC/non-AP STA. The entire claim 17 device is mapped above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 19
“19. A wireless transceiver device, for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device being one of multiple devices within the wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches machine 600 implementing the disclosed wireless methods in a station or peer role (Fig. 6; [0066]). Here the claimed machine is the GC, participating with the GO in their wireless P2P system and requesting channel management. The GC is one of the multiple devices. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“a processing circuit, arranged to control operations of the wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches processor 602 controlling machine 600 through execution of instructions implementing the disclosed methods. See Fig. 6; [0066]–[0067]; and [0073]. In this mapping the processor controls the GC implementation.
“at least one communication control circuit, coupled to the processing circuit, arranged to perform communication control, wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with another device among the multiple devices for the wireless transceiver device; wherein:”
Hareuveni teaches interface 620 and wireless transceiver circuitry coupled to processor 602 through the illustrated interconnection/bus 608, with antennas 660 providing wireless communication. See Fig. 6; [0067], [0069], [0073]–[0076]. The coupled interface/transceiver circuitry performs communication control with the GO, the other device among the multiple devices of the P2P system. See [0080]–[0084].
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to send a channel switch request in a first communication frame to the other device, to make the other device trigger a channel switch (CS) mechanism to inform the wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GC sending its channel-switch request to the GO in a post-connection action frame ([0084], [0095]–[0097]). Upon accepting that request, the GO triggers the CSA/eCSA announcement in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the current channel to its requested target channel ([0100]). The continuing group communication uses that channel to address the concurrent-link performance problem ([0080], [0083]–[0084], [0087]). Thus the GC is the claimed request-sending device, the GO is the other device that triggers CS, and the announcement returns to the GC. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the causal relationship; [0101] additionally discloses the alternative refusal.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Regarding claim 20
Limitations inherited from claim 19
“19. A wireless transceiver device, for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device being one of multiple devices within the wireless communication system, the wireless transceiver device comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches machine 600 implementing the disclosed wireless methods in a station or peer role (Fig. 6; [0066]). Here the claimed machine is the GC, participating with the GO in their wireless P2P system and requesting channel management. The GC is one of the multiple devices. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“a processing circuit, arranged to control operations of the wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches processor 602 controlling machine 600 through execution of instructions implementing the disclosed methods. See Fig. 6; [0066]–[0067]; and [0073]. In this mapping the processor controls the GC implementation.
“at least one communication control circuit, coupled to the processing circuit, arranged to perform communication control, wherein the at least one communication control circuit is arranged to perform wireless communication operations with another device among the multiple devices for the wireless transceiver device; wherein:”
Hareuveni teaches interface 620 and wireless transceiver circuitry coupled to processor 602 through the illustrated interconnection/bus 608, with antennas 660 providing wireless communication. See Fig. 6; [0067], [0069], [0073]–[0076]. The coupled interface/transceiver circuitry performs communication control with the GO, the other device among the multiple devices of the P2P system. See [0080]–[0084].
“the wireless transceiver device is arranged to send a channel switch request in a first communication frame to the other device, to make the other device trigger a channel switch (CS) mechanism to inform the wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GC sending its channel-switch request to the GO in a post-connection action frame ([0084], [0095]–[0097]). Upon accepting that request, the GO triggers the CSA/eCSA announcement in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the current channel to its requested target channel ([0100]). The continuing group communication uses that channel to address the concurrent-link performance problem ([0080], [0083]–[0084], [0087]). Thus the GC is the claimed request-sending device, the GO is the other device that triggers CS, and the announcement returns to the GC. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the causal relationship; [0101] additionally discloses the alternative refusal.
Additional limitations of claim 20
“20. The wireless transceiver device of claim 19, wherein the other device is an access point (AP) device, and the wireless transceiver device is a non-access-point (non-AP) station (STA) device.”
Hareuveni teaches the GO as AP and its GC as client ([0081]), with non-AP STA terminology in [0064]. The other device is the GO/AP; the claimed claim 19 device is the GC/non-AP STA. The complete claim 19 device is mapped above.
Hareuveni teaches the foregoing limitations in the disclosed method or apparatus arrangement; this ground relies on that single reference.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Leonardo William Estevez et al., US 9,706,600 B2, issued July 11, 2017.
Regarding claim 4
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Additional limitations of claim 4
“4. The method of claim 3, wherein the second wireless transceiver device and a third wireless transceiver device are in a second P2P communication group, the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO) with the third wireless transceiver device acting as a group client (GC), the method further comprises:”
Hareuveni teaches the inherited request/announcement method and first-group GO/GC roles, as mapped above, but does not teach in the cited embodiment that the second device also owns a second group with a third-device client. Estevez teaches that missing arrangement: device 101 is GO of group 107; device 102 is GC of group 107 and GO of group 108; and device 103 is GC of group 108. The first, second, and third devices correspond to 101, 102, and 103; the first and second groups correspond to 107 and 108. See Estevez Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 42–61.
“triggering CS mechanism, by the second wireless transceiver device, to inform the third wireless transceiver device to switch to a second target channel for communication between the second wireless transceiver device and the third wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches a GO announcing a switch to its client for continued communication ([0082], [0084], [0100]). Estevez teaches the second-device GO and third-device GC of the second group, but does not expressly teach this additional channel-switch step (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 42–61). In the combination, Hareuveni’s GO-controlled procedure is applied by device 102 to its owned group 108, informing device 103 to move to that group’s second target channel for their continued communication. The reason for this application is stated below.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Estevez’s chained P2P groups extend communication through a device serving both as upstream client and downstream owner. Applying Hareuveni’s operating-channel control to each owned group would permit that relay to coordinate its downstream channel when managing concurrent links, reducing the time-sharing overhead described in Hareuveni [0083]–[0087]. Each group’s GO retains channel control. The predictable result is the same owner-announced switch on the second group’s link, without transferring control of the first group to its client.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Prakash Chaki et al., WO 2017/037766 A1, published March 9, 2017.
Regarding claim 5, Limitations inherited from claim 1,“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Additional limitations of claim 5
“5. The method of claim 3, wherein the second wireless transceiver device and a fourth wireless transceiver device are in a third P2P communication group, the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC) with the fourth wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), wherein the third P2P communication group coexists with the first P2P communication group.”
Hareuveni teaches the inherited first-group request/announcement procedure but does not teach the recited dual-GC arrangement in the cited embodiment. Chaki teaches a connector simultaneously connected as a client to two groups having respective owners. The connector is the second device; one owner is the first device and the other owner is the fourth device. The second group of that arrangement is the claimed third P2P communication group. Its simultaneous connections establish coexistence with the first group. See Chaki § 1 and § 5, supplementary notes (2)–(4). The simultaneous-connection embodiment is relied upon.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Hareuveni does not expressly supply the dual-GC topology. Chaki supplies it to maintain communication across groups. Providing Hareuveni’s requesting GC with those concurrent memberships would retain access to both groups while allowing it to request a channel change from the first GO to manage concurrency costs. Hareuveni [0083]–[0087] explains that performance incentive. Use Chaki’s simultaneous-connection embodiment, not its alternative disconnect-and-reconnect operation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Bu-Seop Jung, EP 3 833 151 A1, published June 9, 2021.
Regarding claim 6
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Additional limitations of claim 6
“6. The method of claim 3, wherein the first wireless transceiver device and a fifth wireless transceiver device are in a fourth P2P communication group, the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO) with the fifth wireless transceiver device acting as a group client (GC), wherein the fourth P2P communication group coexists with the first P2P communication group.”
Hareuveni teaches the inherited first-group GO/GC method but does not teach the claimed common owner of two coexisting groups in the cited embodiment. Jung teaches concurrent P2P groups, expressly permits a single device to be GO of both ([0190]), and permits another device to join an existing group ([0192]–[0193]). In that disclosed implementation, device 400 is the common first-device GO, device 500 is the second-device GC of the first group, and joining device 600 is the fifth-device GC of the other group, corresponding to the fourth group. Concurrent operation supplies coexistence. See Jung Fig. 10 and [0185]–[0193].
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Hareuveni supplies the request and owner-announced channel move; Jung supplies the concurrent common-owner configuration. Operating Hareuveni’s GO with Jung’s two groups would maintain service for additional peers across operating bands while allowing the requested channel adjustment on the first group. Jung [0185]–[0193] identifies concurrent connectivity and continued discovery; Hareuveni [0083]–[0087] identifies the need to manage competing channel demands. These functions are compatible because each group retains an owner and an operating channel.
Claims 7, 8, 9 — 35 U.S.C. 103 — Hareuveni; Cordeiro; Wi-Fi P2P
Claims 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Cordeiro and Trainin, US 8,654,746 B2, issued February 18, 2014; and Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7, July 6, 2016.
Regarding claim 7
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 7
“7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:”
The claim 1 method is inherited and mapped limitation by limitation above. The further steps are mapped in the following paragraphs.
“after triggering the CS mechanism, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the target channel, to the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the preceding request and owner-controlled change but does not teach this target-channel management-frame test in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches reaching Transition Done on the new channel after FST setup, followed by the responder sending an FST Ack Response to the initiator. The first device is the responder and the second device is the initiator; the new channel is the target channel. See Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Cordeiro col. 9, Table 5 identifies the response as an Action frame. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 identifies FST Action frames as management frames, and § 3.2.2 permits a GO to change channel using FST with its clients. Thus the combined procedure supplies the claimed actor, frame, target channel, recipient, and order.
“deciding whether to switch to the target channel according to whether receiving an acknowledgement from the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited acknowledgment-conditioned completion decision in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that the responder confirms the transition upon receipt of the MAC ACK for its FST Ack Response; expiration of the state transition timer without completion returns the transfer to the initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56; and claims 4–5. The received MAC ACK is from the second-device initiator. The transmitted FST Ack Response is the management frame, not the received MAC ACK. The decision is the completion decision under the claim construction stated above.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Use Cordeiro’s FST confirmation for Hareuveni’s accepted GC-requested move so the GO verifies that its peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to the new channel, and can return if the transfer fails. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly identifies FST as a GO channel-change option. The combination preserves the GC-request/GO-decision relationship and adds a known transfer-completion test addressing loss of connectivity during the change.
Regarding claim 8
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 7
“7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:”
The claim 1 method is inherited and mapped limitation by limitation above. The further steps are mapped in the following paragraphs.
“after triggering the CS mechanism, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the target channel, to the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the preceding request and owner-controlled change but does not teach this target-channel management-frame test in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches reaching Transition Done on the new channel after FST setup, followed by the responder sending an FST Ack Response to the initiator. The first device is the responder and the second device is the initiator; the new channel is the target channel. See Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Cordeiro col. 9, Table 5 identifies the response as an Action frame. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 identifies FST Action frames as management frames, and § 3.2.2 permits a GO to change channel using FST with its clients. Thus the combined procedure supplies the claimed actor, frame, target channel, recipient, and order.
“deciding whether to switch to the target channel according to whether receiving an acknowledgement from the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited acknowledgment-conditioned completion decision in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that the responder confirms the transition upon receipt of the MAC ACK for its FST Ack Response; expiration of the state transition timer without completion returns the transfer to the initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56; and claims 4–5. The received MAC ACK is from the second-device initiator. The transmitted FST Ack Response is the management frame, not the received MAC ACK. The decision is the completion decision under the claim construction stated above.
Motivation for the inherited claim 7 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Use Cordeiro’s FST confirmation for Hareuveni’s accepted GC-requested move so the GO verifies that its peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to the new channel, and can return if the transfer fails. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly identifies FST as a GO channel-change option. The combination preserves the GC-request/GO-decision relationship and adds a known transfer-completion test addressing loss of connectivity during the change.
Additional limitations of claim 8
“8. The method of claim 7, wherein the deciding step comprises:”
The claim 7 method, including its inherited claim 1 limitations, is mapped above. The added affirmative branch is addressed next.
“deciding to switch to the target channel when the acknowledgement is received.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited ACK-conditioned decision in its cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches the responder entering Transition Confirmed when its transmitted FST Ack Response is acknowledged by the initiator’s MAC ACK. See col. 14, lines 51–56, and claim 5. With the first device as responder and second device as initiator, this is the affirmative decision to complete the target-channel transfer upon receipt of the second device’s acknowledgment.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Applying Cordeiro’s received-ACK success branch to Hareuveni’s requested channel move verifies that the peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to that channel. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly permits the GO/client FST procedure; the existing FST handshake and MAC acknowledgment therefore provide a predictable completion criterion.
Regarding claim 9
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 7
“7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:”
The claim 1 method is inherited and mapped limitation by limitation above. The further steps are mapped in the following paragraphs.
“after triggering the CS mechanism, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the target channel, to the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the preceding request and owner-controlled change but does not teach this target-channel management-frame test in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches reaching Transition Done on the new channel after FST setup, followed by the responder sending an FST Ack Response to the initiator. The first device is the responder and the second device is the initiator; the new channel is the target channel. See Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Cordeiro col. 9, Table 5 identifies the response as an Action frame. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 identifies FST Action frames as management frames, and § 3.2.2 permits a GO to change channel using FST with its clients. Thus the combined procedure supplies the claimed actor, frame, target channel, recipient, and order.
“deciding whether to switch to the target channel according to whether receiving an acknowledgement from the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited acknowledgment-conditioned completion decision in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that the responder confirms the transition upon receipt of the MAC ACK for its FST Ack Response; expiration of the state transition timer without completion returns the transfer to the initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56; and claims 4–5. The received MAC ACK is from the second-device initiator. The transmitted FST Ack Response is the management frame, not the received MAC ACK. The decision is the completion decision under the claim construction stated above.
Motivation for the inherited claim 7 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Use Cordeiro’s FST confirmation for Hareuveni’s accepted GC-requested move so the GO verifies that its peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to the new channel, and can return if the transfer fails. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly identifies FST as a GO channel-change option. The combination preserves the GC-request/GO-decision relationship and adds a known transfer-completion test addressing loss of connectivity during the change.
Limitations inherited from claim 8
“8. The method of claim 7, wherein the deciding step comprises:”
The claim 7 method, including its inherited claim 1 limitations, is mapped above. The added affirmative branch is addressed next.
“deciding to switch to the target channel when the acknowledgement is received.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited ACK-conditioned decision in its cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches the responder entering Transition Confirmed when its transmitted FST Ack Response is acknowledged by the initiator’s MAC ACK. See col. 14, lines 51–56, and claim 5. With the first device as responder and second device as initiator, this is the affirmative decision to complete the target-channel transfer upon receipt of the second device’s acknowledgment.
Motivation for the inherited claim 8 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Applying Cordeiro’s received-ACK success branch to Hareuveni’s requested channel move verifies that the peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to that channel. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly permits the GO/client FST procedure; the existing FST handshake and MAC acknowledgment therefore provide a predictable completion criterion.
Additional limitations of claim 9
“9. The method of claim 8, wherein the deciding step further comprises:”
The claim 8 method and the full limitations of claims 7 and 1 are mapped above. The additional failure branch is addressed next.
“deciding not to switch to the target channel when no acknowledgement is received.”
Hareuveni does not teach this failure branch in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that an incomplete new-channel transfer returns to the initial state and old channel when the state transition timer expires without the required acknowledgment. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 46–67; col. 14, lines 1–8; and claim 4. Thus the first-device responder does not confirm the target-channel transfer when the acknowledgment is absent. The limitation does not exclude waiting for the timeout.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Applying the no-ACK return branch of Cordeiro avoids committing continued communication to a channel on which the peer has not confirmed reachability. This is the complementary failure branch of the same FST procedure permitted by Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2, using the disclosed state timer rather than assuming a successful transfer.
Claim 10 — 35 U.S.C. 103 — Hareuveni; Cordeiro; Wi-Fi P2P; Galanis
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Cordeiro and Trainin, US 8,654,746 B2, issued February 18, 2014; and Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7, July 6, 2016; and Dimitrios Galanis et al., US 8,861,492 B2, issued October 14, 2014.
Regarding claim 10, Limitations inherited from claim 1 “1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 7
“7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:”
The claim 1 method is inherited and mapped limitation by limitation above. The further steps are mapped in the following paragraphs.
“after triggering the CS mechanism, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the target channel, to the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the preceding request and owner-controlled change but does not teach this target-channel management-frame test in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches reaching Transition Done on the new channel after FST setup, followed by the responder sending an FST Ack Response to the initiator. The first device is the responder and the second device is the initiator; the new channel is the target channel. See Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Cordeiro col. 9, Table 5 identifies the response as an Action frame. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 identifies FST Action frames as management frames, and § 3.2.2 permits a GO to change channel using FST with its clients. Thus the combined procedure supplies the claimed actor, frame, target channel, recipient, and order.
“deciding whether to switch to the target channel according to whether receiving an acknowledgement from the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited acknowledgment-conditioned completion decision in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that the responder confirms the transition upon receipt of the MAC ACK for its FST Ack Response; expiration of the state transition timer without completion returns the transfer to the initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56; and claims 4–5. The received MAC ACK is from the second-device initiator. The transmitted FST Ack Response is the management frame, not the received MAC ACK. The decision is the completion decision under the claim construction stated above.
Motivation for the inherited claim 7 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Use Cordeiro’s FST confirmation for Hareuveni’s accepted GC-requested move so the GO verifies that its peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to the new channel, and can return if the transfer fails. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly identifies FST as a GO channel-change option. The combination preserves the GC-request/GO-decision relationship and adds a known transfer-completion test addressing loss of connectivity during the change.
Limitations inherited from claim 8
“8. The method of claim 7, wherein the deciding step comprises:”
The claim 7 method, including its inherited claim 1 limitations, is mapped above. The added affirmative branch is addressed next.
“deciding to switch to the target channel when the acknowledgement is received.”
Hareuveni does not teach the recited ACK-conditioned decision in its cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches the responder entering Transition Confirmed when its transmitted FST Ack Response is acknowledged by the initiator’s MAC ACK. See col. 14, lines 51–56, and claim 5. With the first device as responder and second device as initiator, this is the affirmative decision to complete the target-channel transfer upon receipt of the second device’s acknowledgment.
Motivation for the inherited claim 8 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Applying Cordeiro’s received-ACK success branch to Hareuveni’s requested channel move verifies that the peer is reachable before committing subsequent communication to that channel. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 expressly permits the GO/client FST procedure; the existing FST handshake and MAC acknowledgment therefore provide a predictable completion criterion.
Limitations inherited from claim 9
“9. The method of claim 8, wherein the deciding step further comprises:”
The claim 8 method and the full limitations of claims 7 and 1 are mapped above. The additional failure branch is addressed next.
“deciding not to switch to the target channel when no acknowledgement is received.”
Hareuveni does not teach this failure branch in the cited embodiment. Cordeiro teaches that an incomplete new-channel transfer returns to the initial state and old channel when the state transition timer expires without the required acknowledgment. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 46–67; col. 14, lines 1–8; and claim 4. Thus the first-device responder does not confirm the target-channel transfer when the acknowledgment is absent. The limitation does not exclude waiting for the timeout.
Motivation for the inherited claim 9 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Applying the no-ACK return branch of Cordeiro avoids committing continued communication to a channel on which the peer has not confirmed reachability. This is the complementary failure branch of the same FST procedure permitted by Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2, using the disclosed state timer rather than assuming a successful transfer.
Additional limitations of claim 10
“10. The method of claim 9, after deciding not to switch to the target channel when no acknowledgement is received in the target channel, further comprising:”
The claim 9 method and its inherited limitations are fully mapped above. Cordeiro teaches the preceding no-ACK decision during the target-channel exchange: Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8. The following steps are applied after that decision.
“switching back to the first channel;”
Cordeiro teaches returning the unsuccessful transfer to the initial state and first channel. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; and claim 4. This is the first device’s return from the attempted target-channel transfer.
“sending another management frame by the first wireless transceiver device, in the first channel, to the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni, Cordeiro, and Wi-Fi P2P do not expressly teach this additional management-frame test at the post-return point. Galanis teaches sending a unicast probe-response management frame to the peer on the selected channel and waiting for its MAC ACK. See Fig. 9; col. 9, lines 1–11; and col. 10, lines 15–63. In the combination, this known test is performed by the first device on the first channel to which Cordeiro has returned it, with the second device as recipient. The placement after the return is a modification supported by the motivation below, not an express disclosure attributed to Galanis.
“when no acknowledgement is received, triggering another CS mechanism.”
Galanis teaches entering synchronization/recovery following missing probe-response ACKs, and trying another channel after unsuccessful detection of the peer. See col. 10, lines 31–63. Galanis does not itself teach a renewed GO announcement. Hareuveni [0084], [0100] and Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 teach the coordinated GO-controlled channel-switch procedure. In the combination, failure of the first-channel management-frame test triggers another instance of that procedure. The claim permits a bounded retry/timeout policy before the no-ACK trigger. The reason for applying Galanis’s failure condition to this renewed CS is stated below.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to apply Galanis’s peer-reachability test to the first device immediately after Cordeiro returns it to the original channel. A failed target-channel transfer leaves the peer’s location uncertain, and returning the local device does not itself establish that the peer is present there. Testing the channel to which the device has already returned supplies that information without an additional preliminary channel visit. In this combined implementation, the first device sends the probe-response management frame to the second device on the first channel and awaits its MAC ACK.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. When those original-channel management transmissions remain unacknowledged, it would have been obvious to use Galanis’s failure-triggered recovery rule to restart the existing GO-controlled CS procedure taught by Hareuveni and Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2. Galanis supplies the reason to stop assuming communication on the tested channel; the GO procedure supplies the coordinated switch notification to the peer. Restarting that procedure attempts to restore a common operating channel after neither the attempted transfer nor the restored-channel check has confirmed connectivity. This preserves GO control instead of replacing it with an unannounced client scan. The renewed exchange may assign FST roles anew; the first-device/responder assignment remains fixed for the earlier target-channel check.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. The resulting order is target-channel no-ACK decision, return to the first channel, management-frame transmission to the second device on that channel, and another CS triggered by missing ACK there. The claim does not exclude a timeout or a bounded number of retries before the trigger. The expected result is conditional resynchronization using existing management transmission, ACK, timer, and switching functions. Galanis does not expressly disclose this entire order or a GO announcement; those aspects are the stated combination and adaptation, not attributed disclosures.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023.
Regarding claim 12, Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Additional limitations of claim 12
“12. The method of claim 1, wherein triggering the CS mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from the first channel to the target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device further comprises:”
Hareuveni teaches the first-device GO triggering the announced move of the second-device GC from the existing channel to the requested target channel for continued communication, as mapped for the inherited claim 1 limitations above. See [0084] and [0100].
“triggering the CS mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from the first channel to the target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device in a situation where no radar is detected on the first channel.”
Hareuveni teaches performance-driven changes to reduce concurrent-link time-sharing overhead ([0083]–[0087], [0102]), but does not expressly teach the stated absence of detected radar. That negative operating condition is supplied by the modification explained in the motivation below. No additional reference or inherent disclosure is asserted for that condition.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. A skilled person implementing the disclosed performance-triggered switch would have applied it when no radar was detected as well: competing channel use and its time-sharing overhead remain present without radar, and waiting for an unrelated radar event would prevent the disclosed performance correction. The predictable result is the same GC request and GO-announced move during ordinary no-radar operation. This reasoning addresses absence of radar detection, not an additional requirement to implement a radar detector or disregard mandatory radar procedures.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Bu-Seop Jung, EP 3 833 151 A1, published June 9, 2021; and Cordeiro and Trainin, US 8,654,746 B2, issued February 18, 2014; and Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7, July 6, 2016.
Regarding claim 13
Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Limitations inherited from claim 6
“6. The method of claim 3, wherein the first wireless transceiver device and a fifth wireless transceiver device are in a fourth P2P communication group, the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO) with the fifth wireless transceiver device acting as a group client (GC), wherein the fourth P2P communication group coexists with the first P2P communication group.”
Hareuveni teaches the inherited first-group GO/GC method but does not teach the claimed common owner of two coexisting groups in the cited embodiment. Jung teaches concurrent P2P groups, expressly permits a single device to be GO of both ([0190]), and permits another device to join an existing group ([0192]–[0193]). In that disclosed implementation, device 400 is the common first-device GO, device 500 is the second-device GC of the first group, and joining device 600 is the fifth-device GC of the other group, corresponding to the fourth group. Concurrent operation supplies coexistence. See Jung Fig. 10 and [0185]–[0193].
Motivation for the inherited claim 6 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Hareuveni supplies the request and owner-announced channel move; Jung supplies the concurrent common-owner configuration. Operating Hareuveni’s GO with Jung’s two groups would maintain service for additional peers across operating bands while allowing the requested channel adjustment on the first group. Jung [0185]–[0193] identifies concurrent connectivity and continued discovery; Hareuveni [0083]–[0087] identifies the need to manage competing channel demands. These functions are compatible because each group retains an owner and an operating channel.
Additional limitations of claim 13
“13. The method of claim 6, further comprising:”
The claim 6 method and the limitations inherited through claims 3 and 1 are reproduced and mapped above.
“triggering a CS mechanism regarding the fourth P2P communication group, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the fifth wireless transceiver device to switch from another first channel to another target channel, for subsequent communication of the fifth wireless transceiver device;”
Hareuveni teaches owner-controlled channel switching ([0082], [0084], [0100]) but does not itself teach the additional fourth-group arrangement. Jung teaches that arrangement through the common GO and additional client (Fig. 10; [0185]–[0193]), but does not teach the full fourth-group confirmation sequence. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 teaches use of FST by a GO with its clients. In the combination, the first-device common GO applies Cordeiro’s setup/transfer procedure to its fifth-device client in the fourth group, informing that client to move from that group’s original channel to its target channel for continued communication. See Cordeiro Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; cols. 13–14. These group-specific channels correspond to another first channel and another target channel.
“after triggering the CS mechanism regarding the fourth P2P communication group, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the other target channel, to the fifth wireless transceiver device; and”
Cordeiro teaches the responder sending the FST Ack Response on the new channel after FST setup. For this fourth-group exchange, the responder is the first device, the initiator is the fifth device, and the new channel is the other target channel. See col. 9, Table 5; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 supplies the FST Action-management-frame classification, and § 3.2.2 supplies the GO/client FST option. Hareuveni and Jung do not themselves disclose this complete target-channel test.
“regarding the fourth P2P communication group, deciding whether to switch from the other first channel to the other target channel according to whether an acknowledgement from the fifth wireless transceiver device is received, wherein the deciding step comprises:”
Cordeiro teaches the first-device responder’s completion decision based on receipt of the fifth-device initiator’s MAC ACK; failure to complete before the timer expires returns the transfer to its initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56. Applying that exchange to Jung’s fourth group makes the decision specific to the other first channel and other target channel for that peer.
“in response to no acknowledgement from the fifth wireless transceiver device being received, deciding not to switch to the other target channel, and switching back to the other first channel.”
Cordeiro teaches the no-ACK/timeout return to the original channel without confirming the new-channel transfer. See Fig. 4; claim 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; and col. 14, lines 1–8. Applied to the first/fifth-device pair, the absent ACK is from the fifth device and the return is to the fourth group’s other first channel. The combination motivation below explains why the recovery test is applied to this distinct group.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Jung provides concurrent groups under one owner. Applying the owner-controlled change and FST completion test to each affected peer link allows the owner to manage one group’s channel without assuming that a successful transfer on another group proves reachability of this peer. Cordeiro supplies the link-specific handshake and recovery, and Wi-Fi P2P expressly permits FST with one or more clients. The predictable result is an independently verified fourth-group transfer with return on failure. The complete fourth-group procedure results from the identified combination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofer Hareuveni et al., US 2023/0132460 A1, published May 4, 2023 in view of Bu-Seop Jung, EP 3 833 151 A1, published June 9, 2021; and Cordeiro and Trainin, US 8,654,746 B2, issued February 18, 2014; and Wi-Fi Alliance, Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Technical Specification v1.7, July 6, 2016; and Dimitrios Galanis et al., US 8,861,492 B2, issued October 14, 2014.
Regarding claim 14 Limitations inherited from claim 1
“1. A method for performing channel management in a wireless communication system, the wireless communication system comprising a first wireless transceiver device and a second wireless transceiver device, the method comprising:”
Hareuveni teaches a wireless P2P communication system having a group owner (GO) and a group client (GC), which exchange communications over their group operating channel. The GO corresponds to the first wireless transceiver device and the GC to the second wireless transceiver device. Its request-driven operating-channel change performs the recited channel management. See [0080]–[0084] and Fig. 7.
“receiving, by the first wireless transceiver device, a channel switch request in a first communication frame from the second wireless transceiver device; and”
Hareuveni teaches the GC transmitting a post-connection channel-switch request action frame to the GO, with the desired channel and channel parameters. The GO receives that action frame from the GC. The action frame is the first communication frame and contains the channel switch request. See [0084], [0095]–[0097], and [0100].
“triggering a channel switch (CS) mechanism, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the second wireless transceiver device to switch from a first channel to a target channel, for subsequent communication of the second wireless transceiver device.”
Hareuveni teaches that, upon accepting the received request, the GO schedules and announces the move using CSA/eCSA elements in beacons, informing the requesting GC to move from the existing operating channel to the requested target channel. The group continues communication on that channel to address the concurrency performance problem. See [0083]–[0084], [0087], and [0100]. The accepted-request embodiment supplies the complete recited sequence; the optional refusal in [0101] does not remove that disclosed embodiment.
Limitations inherited from claim 3
“3. The method of claim 1, the first wireless transceiver device and the second wireless transceiver device being in a first peer to peer (P2P) communication group, wherein the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO), and the second wireless transceiver device is acting as a group client (GC).”
Hareuveni teaches a P2P group comprising the GO and its GC. Thus both the first device (GO) and second device (GC) belong to the same first P2P communication group, with the respective owner/client roles required by the claim. See [0080]–[0082] and [0084]. The claim 1 method is mapped above.
Limitations inherited from claim 6
“6. The method of claim 3, wherein the first wireless transceiver device and a fifth wireless transceiver device are in a fourth P2P communication group, the first wireless transceiver device is acting as a group owner (GO) with the fifth wireless transceiver device acting as a group client (GC), wherein the fourth P2P communication group coexists with the first P2P communication group.”
Hareuveni teaches the inherited first-group GO/GC method but does not teach the claimed common owner of two coexisting groups in the cited embodiment. Jung teaches concurrent P2P groups, expressly permits a single device to be GO of both ([0190]), and permits another device to join an existing group ([0192]–[0193]). In that disclosed implementation, device 400 is the common first-device GO, device 500 is the second-device GC of the first group, and joining device 600 is the fifth-device GC of the other group, corresponding to the fourth group. Concurrent operation supplies coexistence. See Jung Fig. 10 and [0185]–[0193].
Motivation for the inherited claim 6 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Hareuveni supplies the request and owner-announced channel move; Jung supplies the concurrent common-owner configuration. Operating Hareuveni’s GO with Jung’s two groups would maintain service for additional peers across operating bands while allowing the requested channel adjustment on the first group. Jung [0185]–[0193] identifies concurrent connectivity and continued discovery; Hareuveni [0083]–[0087] identifies the need to manage competing channel demands. These functions are compatible because each group retains an owner and an operating channel.
Limitations inherited from claim 13
“13. The method of claim 6, further comprising:”
The claim 6 method and the limitations inherited through claims 3 and 1 are reproduced and mapped above.
“triggering a CS mechanism regarding the fourth P2P communication group, by the first wireless transceiver device, to inform the fifth wireless transceiver device to switch from another first channel to another target channel, for subsequent communication of the fifth wireless transceiver device;”
Hareuveni teaches owner-controlled channel switching ([0082], [0084], [0100]) but does not itself teach the additional fourth-group arrangement. Jung teaches that arrangement through the common GO and additional client (Fig. 10; [0185]–[0193]), but does not teach the full fourth-group confirmation sequence. Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 teaches use of FST by a GO with its clients. In the combination, the first-device common GO applies Cordeiro’s setup/transfer procedure to its fifth-device client in the fourth group, informing that client to move from that group’s original channel to its target channel for continued communication. See Cordeiro Fig. 4; col. 10, lines 1–17; cols. 13–14. These group-specific channels correspond to another first channel and another target channel.
“after triggering the CS mechanism regarding the fourth P2P communication group, sending a management frame by the first wireless transceiver device in the other target channel, to the fifth wireless transceiver device; and”
Cordeiro teaches the responder sending the FST Ack Response on the new channel after FST setup. For this fourth-group exchange, the responder is the first device, the initiator is the fifth device, and the new channel is the other target channel. See col. 9, Table 5; col. 13, lines 46–67; and col. 14, lines 1–18. Wi-Fi P2P § 4.2.12 supplies the FST Action-management-frame classification, and § 3.2.2 supplies the GO/client FST option. Hareuveni and Jung do not themselves disclose this complete target-channel test.
“regarding the fourth P2P communication group, deciding whether to switch from the other first channel to the other target channel according to whether an acknowledgement from the fifth wireless transceiver device is received, wherein the deciding step comprises:”
Cordeiro teaches the first-device responder’s completion decision based on receipt of the fifth-device initiator’s MAC ACK; failure to complete before the timer expires returns the transfer to its initial state. See Fig. 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; col. 14, lines 1–8 and 51–56. Applying that exchange to Jung’s fourth group makes the decision specific to the other first channel and other target channel for that peer.
“in response to no acknowledgement from the fifth wireless transceiver device being received, deciding not to switch to the other target channel, and switching back to the other first channel.”
Cordeiro teaches the no-ACK/timeout return to the original channel without confirming the new-channel transfer. See Fig. 4; claim 4; col. 13, lines 51–67; and col. 14, lines 1–8. Applied to the first/fifth-device pair, the absent ACK is from the fifth device and the return is to the fourth group’s other first channel. The combination motivation below explains why the recovery test is applied to this distinct group.
Motivation for the inherited claim 13 combination
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. Jung provides concurrent groups under one owner. Applying the owner-controlled change and FST completion test to each affected peer link allows the owner to manage one group’s channel without assuming that a successful transfer on another group proves reachability of this peer. Cordeiro supplies the link-specific handshake and recovery, and Wi-Fi P2P expressly permits FST with one or more clients. The predictable result is an independently verified fourth-group transfer with return on failure. The complete fourth-group procedure results from the identified combination.
Additional limitations of claim 14
“14. The method of claim 13, further comprising:”
The claim 13 method and the full limitations inherited through claims 6, 3, and 1 are mapped above.
“after switching back to the other first channel regarding the fourth P2P communication group, sending another management frame by the first wireless transceiver device, in the other first channel, to the fifth wireless transceiver device; and”
Cordeiro teaches the preceding return after failed confirmation (Fig. 4; claim 4; col. 13, lines 51–67), but the inherited combination does not expressly teach a management-frame check on the restored fourth-group channel. Galanis teaches a probe-response management frame sent to a peer on the selected channel while waiting for that peer’s MAC ACK (Fig. 9; col. 9, lines 1–11; col. 10, lines 15–63). In the combination, the first-device common GO sends this frame on the restored other first channel to the fifth-device client. Placement at this post-return point is the modification explained below.
“when no acknowledgement from the fifth wireless transceiver device is received, triggering another CS mechanism regarding the fourth P2P communication group.”
Galanis teaches ACK-failure-triggered synchronization and a further channel attempt after unsuccessful peer detection (col. 10, lines 31–63), but not the claimed GO-controlled notification. Hareuveni [0084], [0100] and Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 supply that coordinated switch procedure. In the combination, absence of the fifth device’s ACK to the restored-channel management frame triggers another CS for that fourth group, under the existing retry/timeout policy. The condition, recipient, and group are specific to the fifth-device link rather than another group’s traffic.
Motivation for the combination and modification
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to apply that test after the common GO returns to the fourth group’s original channel. In this implementation, the first device sends another unicast probe-response management frame on the “other first channel” to the fifth device. The fifth device is the intended ACK source. A working first-group link does not establish that this distinct fourth-group peer followed or reversed its channel move, so the reachability check is performed for the fourth group itself.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. If the fifth device does not acknowledge the restored-channel management transmission within the configured retry/timeout policy, the first device triggers another CS for that fourth group. Galanis supplies the failure-triggered recovery decision; Hareuveni and Wi-Fi P2P § 3.2.2 supply the coordinated owner-controlled switch procedure used for the retry. The motivation is to restore that peer link after return alone has not confirmed communication, while retaining the GO’s authority and avoiding treating another group’s successful exchange as proof of this peer’s location. Existing per-peer addressing, ACK handling, and group channel state supply a predictable implementation of the same recovery technique.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the foregoing modification for the following reasons. The combination preserves the required order and identities: first device returns to the fourth group’s original channel, first device sends the management frame there to the fifth device, and lack of the fifth device’s ACK causes another fourth-group CS. Applying Galanis at the post-return point and using the owner’s coordinated CS procedure are explicit § 103 modifications; Galanis alone is not said to disclose the claimed multiple groups, return sequence, or GO notification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights