DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on June 22, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the previous Claim Objections and Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §112(b).
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (see pp 8 of Applicant’s remarks): “[Smith] does not identify a probe comprising a request for connection to a second network, does not state that such a probe is communicated as a result of executing a dissociation operation, and does not tie the probe to the claimed moment when the UE exits the first zone and enters the second zone. An implication that scanning may occur is not a teaching of the specific claimed operation and trigger.”
First, with respect to the reference to active scanning in Smith (see ¶0088), a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand active scanning in Smith as the sending of a probe request for purposes of discovering/connecting to nearby Wi-Fi networks as is traditionally performed in the art (see for example Brenner, Pablo. "A technical tutorial on the IEEE 802.11 protocol." BreezeCom Wireless Communications (1997), see pp. 10, “Active Scanning: In the case the station tries to find an Access Point by transmitting Probe Request Frames, and waiting for Probe Response from the AP”), which broadly reads on “a request for connection to the second network” as currently claimed. Furthermore, Smith expressly teach the active scanning/probing is enabled upon the UE exiting the first zone and entering a second zone (see ¶0088, i.e., “…as the mobile device moves through the physical environment 500. Specifically the policy can trigger activation of links in the LTE network and/or the WiFi network which can enable normal passive/active scanning”, also see for example, ¶0064, i.e., “… For example, a wireless network selection policy can be configured to trigger a mobile device to switch from accessing network services through a cellular network to accessing network services through a WiFi network when the mobile device moves indoors.…”, which is further evidence of the policies related to scanning/probing, see ¶0088, being triggered upon the UE exiting the first zone (e.g., outdoors) and entering a second zone (e.g., indoors)).
With respect to Applicant’s further argument “Applicant's disclosure confirms that the claimed ‘dissociation operation’ is not merely toggling an interface” (see pp. 8), Applicant is remined, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case the following limitations from Applicant’s specification, which are relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention (see pp. 8 of Applicant’s remarks), are not recited into the claimed invention:
“determining an event for which an AP will drop the UE from a network connection, informing the cloud of imminent disassociation, and effectuating a disassociation operation from the AP and WiFi network while performing authentication and connection with a cellular network”;
“disconnecting/disassociating the UE from WiFi once RSSI crosses a threshold, using backoff to prevent re-association, and coordinating routing or core-network behavior in view of imminent disassociation”;
“For cellular-to-WiFi handover, the disclosure describes detecting movement data, making a WiFi association prediction, causing a handover involving dissociation of the cellular network and authentication/connection to WiFi, and controlling probe/association/authentication behavior, including not replying to a probe request, not authenticating the UE, or dissociating the UE after it connects”; and
“The specification also identifies specific control mechanisms such as ignoring a probe request, ignoring an association request, dropping an EAPOL-Start frame to force timeout, and responding with invalid credentials”.
Therefore, the Examiner is broadly reading the term “dissociation” according to its ordinary meaning i.e., “the act or process of dissociating”, which is broadly met by the toggling or deactivation of respective cellular or wi-fi network interfaces as taught by Smith (see for example, ¶0078).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 6 and 17, first, the limitation “where the probe request being sent from the UE” is grammatically not clear. Moreover, “the analyzing of the probe request from the UE credentials to the second” limitation is simply indefinite, and the limitation to the “UE credentials” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
For purposes of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“… wherein the probe request [[being]] is sent from the UE, …
determining a MAC address for the UE associated with the received probe request;
determining UE credentials based on the MAC address for accessing the second network;
wherein the handover is based on admission to the second zone based on the determined UE credentials .”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0185600)(“Smith”) in view of Beck et al. (US 2021/0352553)(“Beck”)
As per claim 1, Smith teaches a method comprising:
monitoring, via a device (i.e., location based network access system 408) over a first network (see Fig. 4, also see ¶0054, i.e., “the location based network access system 408 can be implemented, at least in part, remote from the mobile device 406, e.g., … in a network infrastructure of the first wireless network 402 and/or a network infrastructure of the second wireless network 404”), activity data of user equipment (UE) (i.e., changes related to a mobile device’s location, see ¶0057), the activity data corresponding to at least movement of the UE in relation to a first zone (see ¶0057, also see ¶0089, i.e., “as a mobile device moves in the physical environment”, also see ¶0090, where a “transitional zone” is an example of a physical environment/first zone) the UE connected to the first network (see ¶0056, i.e., “…wireless network 402” or “the second wireless network 404”);
analyzing, by the device, the activity data, and determining, based on the analysis, that the UE is exiting the first zone (see ¶0057, also see for example ¶0091, “As the mobile device passes through the second zone 504…”, which anticipates a determination that the mobile device is “passing through” or exiting the transition/first zone and entering a second/cafeteria zone);
determining, by the device, based on the exiting of the first zone determination, a dissociation operation (see ¶0056, i.e., “… the location based network access system 408 can activate or ensure that a WiFi interface at the mobile device 406 is active and deactivate a cellular network interface at the mobile device 406”, also see for example ¶0089, i.e., “Specifically, the WiFi interface at the mobile device can be activated and the LTE interface at the mobile device can be deactivated to ensure that the mobile device just accesses network services through the WiFi network”, and ¶0090, i.e., “The mobile device can recognize the BSSID of the access point in the cafeteria and switch to accessing network services through only the WiFi network, e.g. according to the policy for the fourth zone 508”).
executing, by the device, the dissociation operation (see ¶0056, i.e., deactivate a cellular network interface at the mobile device 406”, also see ¶0066, “the location based network access system 408 can control the mobile device's 406 access to network services based on the one or more applied network selection policies by selectively toggling the wireless interfaces at the mobile device 406 according to the network selection policies.”), such that at least one probe is communicated to a second network (see ¶0088, i.e., “…enable normal passive/active scanning…”, which implies probing WiFi networks), the probe comprising a request for connection to the second network upon the UE exiting the first zone and entering a second zone (see ¶0088-0089, i.e., upon the WiFi interface at the mobile device being activated in the second/cafeteria zone “…enable normal passive/active scanning…”, where probing during an active scan broadly reads on an initial request or query that triggers a probe response for connection to discovered WiFi network associated with the second/cafeteria zone);
performing, by the device, a handover between the first network and the second network (see ¶0089, “Specifically, the WiFi interface at the mobile device can be activated and the LTE interface at the mobile device can be deactivated to ensure that the mobile device just accesses network services through the WiFi network”, also see ¶0091, i.e., “The mobile device can recognize the BSSID of the access point in the cafeteria and switch to accessing network services through only the WiFi network”, which anticipates a handover).
Smith, however, does not expressly teach the disassociation step comprising, a hard handover, i.e., performing, by the device, a handover between the first network and the second network, such that the UE is dropped from the first network and then connected to the second network.”
Nevertheless, performing a hard handover, otherwise known as a “break-before-make” handover, where a connection with a current network is dropped before a connection is made to a second network, was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Beck ¶0008 and/or ¶0170).
Although admittedly less ideal then a soft-handover or make-before-break handover, it nevertheless would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to support a hard handover in Smith, or the particular timing of dropping of the first connection prior to making the second connection as currently claimed, (i.e., “…such that the UE is dropped from the first network and then connected to the second network”). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support continued operations where soft-handovers are not possible, either because of limitations with regard to the physical environments and/or physical hardware limitations at the UE/STA.
As per claim 3, Smith further teaches wherein the dissociation operation is based on data related to statistics of at least one of the first network and second network (see for example ¶0062, wherein the classifying zones, which triggers the handover or dissociation operation, is based on usage data, e.g., “density of devices, and amount of traffic, etc.”, read as data related to statistics of at least one of the first and second network)
As per claim 4, Smith further teaches wherein network characteristics are a basis for the dissociation operation when the data related to the statistics are not available, wherein the network characteristics relate at least to link quality of each network (see for example ¶0070, where the classification/geometry of zones, which triggers the dissociation operation/handover, may also be determined based on signal and/or latency thresholds for the first network and/or second network, read as network characteristics related to link quality. Thus, assuming for whatever reason the usage data, e.g., “density of devices, and amount of traffic, etc.” (see ¶0062), is not available, the zone classification can still rely on other metrics (e.g., signal and/or latency thresholds) for defining the various zones associated with using the first and/or second networks).
As per claim 5, Smith further teaches wherein the network characteristics are measured against thresholds being specific to at least one of … location (i.e., zone-specific, e.g., “the location based network access system 408 can classify locations where the probability p of maintaining an enterprise wireless network signal is above a threshold i into specific zones, e.g. work zones”, and/or “classify locations where the probability p of maintaining the enterprise wireless network signal drops below the threshold I, or where disconnections are observed, into other zones, e.g. transitional zones.”) and/or access mechanisms (see ¶0069, e.g., “another applicable threshold metric for wirelessly accessing network services”).
As per claim 7, Smith further teaches training a model based on handover behaviors (see ¶0082-¶0083, e.g., “thousands of prior entrances to the lobby”); and
executing the handover of the UE based on the trained model (i.e., to classify zones, see ¶0082, which triggers the execution of handovers, see for example, ¶0091, i.e., “…switch to accessing network services through only the WiFi network”).
As per claim 10, Smith further teaches wherein the first network is a WiFi network (see ¶0050, i.e., “For example, the WiFi network and the LTE network can provide overlapping wireless coverage in a lobby of the building, and the area immediately outside the lobby, that effectively serves as a transitional zone between the WiFi network and the LTE network”), wherein the first zone is a location associated with the WiFi network (see ¶0057, also see ¶0089, i.e., “as a mobile device moves in the physical environment”, also see ¶0090, where a “transitional zone” is an example of a physical environment/first zone), wherein the activity data indicates movements of the UE exiting a coverage area of the WiFi network (see for example ¶0091, “As the mobile device passes through the second zone 504…”, where “passes through”, anticipates exiting the transition/first zone and entering a second zone, e.g., cafeteria);
As per claim 11, Smith further teaches wherein the second network is a cellular network (i.e., LTE, see for example, ¶0090 “Specifically as the mobile device moves in the transitional zone in the lobby, it can roam to an access point in the lobby and also switch to a dual link mode where both the LTE interface and the WiFi interface are active at the mobile device”, also see ¶0088, i.e., “paging/access channel registration/updates”, which anticipates, in the context of claim 1, a PRACH/RACH request (read as a probe) for access to the second/LTE network when the LTE interface is activated).
As per claim 12, Smith further teaches wherein the first network is a cellular network (see ¶0050 and ¶091, where an LTE/first network may be supported in a transitional/first zone, e.g., lobby of the building), wherein the exiting of the first zone (e.g., transitional zone) corresponds to the UE entering a location associated with the second network, wherein the second network is a Wi-Fi network (i.e., WiFi network, see ¶0091).
As per claim 13, Smith further teach wherein the device (i.e., location based network access system 408) is a cloud device that controls the handover of the UE (see for example, ¶0052, and ¶0054, e.g., in a cloud environment).
Claims 2, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Beck, in further view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0044914)(“Chen”).
As per claim 2, the combination of Smith and Beck does not expressly teach wherein the handover comprises authenticating the UE with the second network.
Nevertheless, in the same art of wireless roaming/handover, Chen teaches performing roaming/handover based on authenticating a UE with a second network (see Fig. 3, and ¶0022 and ¶0047, where roaming to another AP, i.e., second network, is based on authenticating the WiFi device credentials).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Smith and Beck with the teaching of Chen to require authentication of the UE with the second network. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for security reasons, i.e., to prevent unauthorized access to network resources in the second network.
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-6 and 11-12 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Beck, in further view of Liang et al. (US 2023/0010677)(“Liang”).
As per claim 6, although Smith teaches wherein the probe request is sent from a UE (i.e., active scanning, see ¶0088), the combination of Smith and Beck does not expressly teach (as interpreted by the Examiner, see Claim Rejections §112):
determining a MAC address for the UE associated with the received probe request;
determining UE credentials based on the MAC address for accessing the second network;
wherein the handover is based on admission to the second zone based on the UE credentials.
Nevertheless, in the same art of WLAN connectivity, Liang teaches receiving a probe request sent from an STA/UE (see Fig.4, ref. S400, and ¶0062); determining a MAC address of the STA/UE (i.e., “check whether the MAC address of the STA exists in the first ACL”) and verifying UE credentials based on a MAC address Id., prior to delivering a probe response for connecting to a network (see ¶0063-0065).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly determine a MAC address and UE credentials associated with the probe request, prior to receiving a probe response for performing the handover to the second network/Wi-Fi network in Smith (i.e., active scanning, see ¶0088). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to prevent unauthorized devices from receiving probe responses from the second network/Wi-Fi network in Smith.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Beck, in further view of Mestanov et al. (US 2014/0307707)(“Mestanov”).
As per claim 8, Smith does not expressly teach wherein the dissociation operation is based on at least one of a dissociation time, dissociation code and deauthentication operation.
Nevertheless, performing a handover/dissociation operation based on at least one of a dissociation time, dissociation code and deauthentication operation, was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Mestanov ¶0015, i.e., “Deauthentication Management frame including a reason code that corresponds to the handover instruction and a Disassociation Management frame including a reason code that corresponds to the handover instruction”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a handover/dissociation operation in Smith based on at least one of a dissociation time, dissociation code and deauthentication operation. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide greater control over handovers from a first WLAN network in Smith to a RAN of a different RAT (e.g., cellular) (see Mestanov ¶0023).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Beck, in further view of Schlatter et al. (US 2015/0045021)(“Schlatter”).
As per claim 9, Smith does not expressly teach wherein the handover is further based on a backoff timer that corresponds to whether the UE is capable of being admitted and de-admitted to one of the first and second networks.
Nevertheless, the use of a backoff timer for admitting/de-admitting connections by UEs to surrounding networks was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Schlatter, ¶0065, “an MS 115-a may wait until the expiration of a back-off timer before determining whether to connect to and/or use an access point for data transmissions”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a backoff timer, similar to Schlatter, for purposes of admitted/de-admitting to the first and/or second networks in Smith. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure quality handover connections to the first and/or second networks in Smith (see Schlatter”, ¶0065, e.g., “a connection that last longer than 60 seconds”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Beck, and Chen, in further view of Liang.
As per claim 17, although Smith teaches wherein the probe request is sent from a UE (i.e., active scanning, see ¶0088), the combination of Smith and Beck does not expressly teach (as interpreted by the Examiner, see Claim Rejections §112):
determining a MAC address for the UE associated with the received probe request;
determining UE credentials based on the MAC address for accessing the second network;
wherein the handover is based on admission to the second zone based on the UE credentials.
Nevertheless, in the same art of WLAN connectivity, Liang teaches receiving a probe request sent from an STA/UE (see Fig.4, ref. S400, and ¶0062); determining a MAC address of the STA/UE (i.e., “check whether the MAC address of the STA exists in the first ACL”) and verifying UE credentials based on a MAC address Id., prior to delivering a probe response for connecting to a network (see ¶0063-0065).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Smith and Liang in claim 6 applies equally well to claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights