DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed July 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING et al. (hereinafter Ding) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0292229 A1) in view of Umapathy et al. (hereinafter Umapathy) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0007023 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Ding teaches and discloses a method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media containing, in any combination, computer program code, which, when executed by a computer system ([0315]; [0316]; non-transitory computer readable medium and program code executed by a computer system), and system (system, figures 1-2) comprising: one or more computer processors (processor, figure 2); and one or more memories (memory, figure 2) collectively containing one or more programs, which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, by an access point (AP) (access point, AP 1; figure 1), contextual data (communication feature; [0236]) transmitted from a client device (Terminal, STA; figure 1) associated with the AP; analyzing the contextual data to determine at least one of the current location of the client device or one or more movement characteristics of the client device (motion feature; [0145]) ([0145]; “…the AP 102 is further configured to obtain, in real time, a motion feature of each terminal 103 that accesses the AP…a motion feature of a terminal 103 indicates that the terminal 103 is moving away from the AP…”; [0236]; “…first AP obtains a communication feature of the to-be-scanned terminal, where the to-be-scanned terminal is a terminal that accesses the first AP, and the communication feature indicates a communication status between the to-be-scanned terminal and the first AP…”; [0237]; “…communication feature includes…a motion feature of the to-be-scanned terminal…The motion feature indicates whether the to-be-scanned terminal is moving away from the first AP…”; teaches and depicts an AP, such as AP 1, receives contextual data (motion feature) of the terminal and analyzes the received data to determine movement/motion of the terminal);
identifying, based on the determined current location or the one or more movement characteristics (motion feature; [0145]), one or more target APs (one of the plurality of neighboring AP, such as AP2; figure 1) from a plurality of neighboring APs (plurality of neighboring APs, 102, figure 1) to which the client device may roam (figure 1; [0142]; teaches the AP 1 determines and identifies a plurality of neighboring AP in which the terminal can roam to); and sending a roaming recommendation (guidance; [0235]) to the client device including the one or more target APs ([0003]; “…a terminal in a motion state, an associated access point (AP) of the terminal may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, where the associated AP of the terminal is an AP accessed by the terminal…”; [0145]; [0235]; “…If the terminal supports the roaming guidance, it indicates that the first AP subsequently guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP, and before the first AP guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP…”; teaches the AP identifies the plurality of neighboring APs and sends guidance to the terminal to roam toward one of the plurality of neighboring APs).
However, Ding may not explicitly disclose wherein the contextual data comprises at least one of location data representing a current location of the client device, or motion state data representing the one or more movement characteristics of the client device.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Umapathy teaches and suggests wherein the contextual data (contextual information; abstract; [0016]) comprises at least one of location data representing a current location of the client device, or motion state data representing the one or more movement characteristics of the client device (abstract; [0016]; [0062]; “…location/position sensors to determine current physical position and/or location of the computing system 201. The location/position sensors may include positioning circuitry… input from audio sensors, vision sensors, and activity sensors (e.g., motion and/or acceleration analysis based on sensor data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.) to determine additional context information (e.g., how secure the current location is, speed of movement/travel, and/or the like…”; [0077]; [0078]; teaches receiving and analyzing contextual information related to the location and movement of a compute node/system, such as a mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate receiving and analyzing contextual information related to the location and movement of a compute node/system, such as a mobile device as taught by Umapathy with the method and apparatus for AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP as disclosed by Ding for the purpose of improving contextual based handover and reducing delay/latency related to handover, as suggested by Umapathy.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, further teaches and discloses assessing, by the AP, one or more network conditions relevant to a roaming decision of the client device ([0012]-[0013]; “…the scan trigger condition includes at least one of the following…a feature value of the signal strength feature is less than a signal strength threshold…”; [0153]-[0155]; [0167]; teaches the AP assesses a network condition, such as signal strength and channel utilization, to determining roaming).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, further teaches and discloses wherein the one or more network conditions comprise at least one of a signal strength of each neighboring AP, a network load of each neighboring AP, or a channel utilization of each neighboring AP ([0012]-[0013]; “…the scan trigger condition includes at least one of the following…a feature value of the signal strength feature is less than a signal strength threshold…”; [0153]-[0155]; [0167]; teaches the AP assesses a network condition, such as signal strength and channel utilization, to determining roaming).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, further teaches and discloses wherein the roaming recommendation is sent by the AP upon detecting that a signal strength between the AP and the client device falls below a defined signal strength threshold, indicating a deterioration in network connectivity for the client device ([0012]-[0013]; “…the scan trigger condition includes at least one of the following…a feature value of the signal strength feature is less than a signal strength threshold…”; [0153]-[0155]; [0167]; [0235]; “…If the terminal supports the roaming guidance, it indicates that the first AP subsequently guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP, and before the first AP guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP…”; teaches the guidance for roaming of the terminal tis based on the signal strength between the Ap and terminal being less than a defined signal strength threshold).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, further teaches and discloses wherein the recommendation is sent by the AP upon receiving a request from the client device ([0003]; “…a terminal in a motion state, an associated access point (AP) of the terminal may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, where the associated AP of the terminal is an AP accessed by the terminal…”; [0145]; [0235]; “…If the terminal supports the roaming guidance, it indicates that the first AP subsequently guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP, and before the first AP guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP…”; teaches the AP sends guidance to the terminal based on an indication by the terminal for the roaming guidance).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, further teaches and discloses transmitting, by the AP, a message to the client device, wherein the message indicates that the AP is capable of providing a roaming recommendation based on the contextual data ([0003]; “…a terminal in a motion state, an associated access point (AP) of the terminal may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, where the associated AP of the terminal is an AP accessed by the terminal…”; [0145]; [0235]; “…If the terminal supports the roaming guidance, it indicates that the first AP subsequently guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP, and before the first AP guides the terminal to roam to the neighboring AP…”; teaches the AP sends guidance to the terminal to roam toward one of the plurality of neighboring APs thus indicating the AP is capable of providing the roaming guidance).
Regarding claim 21, Ding teaches an AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the location data is detected using a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor of the client device, and the motion state data is detected using at least one of an accelerometer or a compass of the client device.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Umapathy teaches and suggests wherein the location data is detected using a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor of the client device, and the motion state data is detected using at least one of an accelerometer or a compass of the client device ([0062]; “…location/position sensors to determine current physical position and/or location of the computing system 201. The location/position sensors may include positioning circuitry… input from audio sensors, vision sensors, and activity sensors (e.g., motion and/or acceleration analysis based on sensor data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc.) to determine additional context information (e.g., how secure the current location is, speed of movement/travel, and/or the like…”; [0145]; “…positioning circuitry 745 includes circuitry to receive and decode signals transmitted/broadcasted by a positioning network of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). Examples of navigation satellite constellations (or GNSS) include United States' Global Positioning System (GPS)…”; teaches location information is detected using GPS sensor and motion sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate location information is detected using GPS sensor and motion sensors as taught by Umapathy with the method and apparatus for AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP as disclosed by Ding, as modified by Umapathy, for the purpose of improving contextual based handover and reducing delay/latency related to handover, as suggested by Umapathy.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING et al. (hereinafter Ding) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0292229 A1) in view of Umapathy et al. (hereinafter Umapathy) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0007023 A1), and further in view of Intel Corporation (hereinafter Intel) (Non-Patent Literature - ."AI/ML based mobility optimization", R3-213471, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #113-e, August 2021).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, teaches an AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP and processing at least one of the current location of the client device or the one or more movement characteristics of the client device as input data for a machine learning (ML) model ([0217]; [0220]), but may not explicitly disclose predicting, using the ML model, a connectivity improvement score for each of the plurality of neighboring APs, wherein the connectivity improvement score represents a likelihood of improved connectivity if the client device is roamed to a respective neighboring AP; and selecting the one or more target APs from the plurality of neighboring APs based on a determination that the connectivity improvement scores for the one or more target APs exceed a defined threshold.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Intel teaches predicting, using the ML model, a connectivity improvement score for each of the plurality of neighboring APs, wherein the connectivity improvement score represents a likelihood of improved connectivity if the client device is roamed to a respective neighboring AP; and selecting the one or more target APs from the plurality of neighboring APs based on a determination that the connectivity improvement scores for the one or more target APs exceed a defined threshold (pages 2-3, section 2.2: "…According to the UE's predicted location, AI/ML model may generate a list of candidate target cells together with priority and handover execution timestamp. This list of candidate cells can be configured to the UE as part of conditional handover. Hence, UE can select one target cell in the list and perform handover at the corresponding handover execution timestamp. The selected handover target cell is the one which has the highest priority among candidate cells in the list…"; teaches using AI/ML modeling in order to determine a selection of a AP associated with a candidate cell for handover).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using AI/ML modeling in order to determine a selection of a AP associated with a candidate cell for handover as taught by Intel with the method and apparatus for AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP as disclosed by Ding, as modified by Umapathy, for the purpose of improving mobility optimization, as suggested by Intel.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ding, as modified by Umapathy and Intel, further teaches and suggests wherein the defined threshold for selecting the one or more target APs is adjustable based at least in part on network policies, desired quality of service levels, or network conditions ([0012]-[0013]; “…the scan trigger condition includes at least one of the following…a feature value of the signal strength feature is less than a signal strength threshold…”; [0153]-[0155]; [0167]; teaches the AP assesses a network condition, such as signal strength and channel utilization, to determining roaming).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING et al. (hereinafter Ding) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0292229 A1) in view of Umapathy et al. (hereinafter Umapathy) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0007023 A1), and further in view of Kapoor et al. (hereinafter Kapoor) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0251429 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, teaches an AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the message comprises at least one of a management frame or a bit set within an information element that is part of a beacon frame or a probe response.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Kapoor teaches and suggests wherein the message comprises at least one of a management frame or a bit set within an information element that is part of a beacon frame or a probe response ([0079]; “…Receiving mechanism 750 generally receives one or more network messages via network interface 720 or radio antenna 710 from a wireless client. The received network messages may include, but are not limited to, requests and/or responses, beacon frames, management frames, control path frames…”; [0080]; “…Transmitting mechanism 760 generally transmits messages, which include, but are not limited to, requests and/or responses, beacon frames, management frames, control path frames…”; teaches the message is communicated using a beacon frame or management frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the message is communicated using a beacon frame or management frame as taught by Kapoor with the method and apparatus for AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP as disclosed by Ding, as modified by Umapathy, for the purpose providing efficient client device roaming in a wireless LAN, as suggested by Kapoor.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING et al. (hereinafter Ding) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0292229 A1) in view of Umapathy et al. (hereinafter Umapathy) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0007023 A1), and further in view of Jia et al. (hereinafter Jia) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0040553 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Ding, as modified by Umapathy, teaches an AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP, but may not explicitly disclose determining, by the AP, that the client device is stationary based on the motion state data; determining that a network condition associated with a current frequency band used by the client device is below a defined level; and recommending, by the AP, that the client device switch from the current frequency band to a different frequency band supported by the AP, based on the client device being stationary and the network condition being below the defined level.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Jia teaches and suggests determining, by the AP, that the client device is stationary based on the motion state data; determining that a network condition associated with a current frequency band used by the client device is below a defined level; and recommending, by the AP, that the client device switch from the current frequency band to a different frequency band supported by the AP, based on the client device being stationary and the network condition being below the defined level ([0020]; [0024]; [0064]; [0065]; teaches determining to change or switch the frequency band based on the speed or stationary speed of the communication device/UE and based on a network condition being less than a defined threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining to change or switch the frequency band based on the speed or stationary speed of the communication device/UE and based on a network condition being less than a defined threshold as taught by Jia with the method and apparatus for AP that may guide the terminal to roam from the associated AP to a neighboring AP as disclosed by Ding, as modified by Umapathy, for the purpose of improving contextual based handover and reducing delay/latency related to handover, as suggested by Jia.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Umapathy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0007023 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights