DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Examiner’s Note
2. 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for receiving”, “means for transmitting” and “means for identifying”, in claims 15, 16 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 15-20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations of 15, 16 and 19 includes “means for receiving”, “means for transmitting” and “means for identifying” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
8. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill (US 2021/0274444 A1) in view of Ong (US 2025/0031153 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, McGill teaches a wireless station (Camera 20A/electronic device- Fig. 1/2; [0049]), comprising:
a processing system (100 of 20) that includes processor circuitry (110 of 20) and memory circuitry (115 of 20) that stores code ([0027]; [0071]) (see Fig. 2; [0025]), the processing system configured to cause the wireless station to:
receive, over a wireless personal area network (WPAN) (WLAN/Wi-Fi) link ([0019]; Fig. 1), an indication of one or more roam triggers (Fig. 4, [0057]-- roaming trigger module 240 {of 20—[0028]; [0025]} receives {from base station 30 over WLAN 25 link-see [0019]; Fig. 1} an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met.)(Hence the 20 receives from the BS 30, over WLAN link, an indication of a roam trigger. ); and
transmit, over the WPAN (WLAN/Wi-Fi) link ([0019]; Fig. 1), an indication of a roam handoff candidate(access point 55-Fig. 1) associated with the one or more roam triggers (Fig. 4, [0057]-- roaming trigger module 240 of 20, receives an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met. Then [0059], roaming handoff module 250 {of 20—[0028]; [0025]} switches to a new access point based on information{selected roaming candidate/new access point 55—[0058]; [0049]} provided by the roaming scan module 245. The roaming handoff module 250 exchanges {to base station 30 over WLAN 25 link-see [0019]; Fig. 1} messages {exam-messages can include a similar messages as is known in the art—i.e. indication--considered} with the selected access point.) (Hence, the 20 transmits to the BS 30, over WLAN link, an indication of roam handoff candidate/AP 55 associated with/based on the roam trigger.).
McGill teaches WLAN/Wi-Fi ([0019]).
McGill does not teach WPAN.
However, in an analogous art, Ong teaches WPAN ([0029], The wireless devices 106 utilizes wireless network (e.g., a WPAN and/or Wi-Fi network) to communicate with the network device 102.)
Since McGill already discloses WLAN/Wi-Fi network (as explained by the examiner above), But McGill fails to teach WPAN. Wherein Ong teaches both WLAN and WPAN networks and the both networks uses the same channels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have applied the additional functions WPAN disclosed by Ong to the Wi-Fi/WLAN of McGill to arrive the claimed invention. One would be motivated as such in order to provide network device determines to modify power level of Wi-Fi network 45% every 15 ms to improve communication with WPAN network. (Ong; [0042]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, McGill further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the wireless station to:
identify an occurrence of the one or more roam triggers(Fig. 4, [0057]-- roaming trigger module 240 {of 20/115—[0028]; [0025]} receives an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met. Wherein [0029], there is an occurrence of predetermined triggering events.)(Hence, the 20 identifies an occurrence of a roam trigger.); and
identify, responsive to the occurrence of the one or more roam triggers(Fig. 4, [0057]-- roaming trigger module 240 {of 20/115—[0028]; [0025]} receives an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met. Wherein [0029], there is an occurrence of predetermined triggering events.), the roam handoff candidate ([0059], roaming handoff module 250 {of 20—[0028]; [0025]} switches to a new access point based on information{selected roaming candidate/new access point 55—[0058]; [0049]} provided by the roaming scan module 245. The roaming handoff module 250 exchanges messages with the selected access point.) (Hence the 20 identifies a roam handoff candidate/access point 55, based on the occurrence of the roam trigger.).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, McGill further teaches wherein the indication of the roam handoff candidate comprises an indication to perform a roam handoff associated with the roam handoff candidate ([0059], roaming handoff module 250 of 20, switches to a new access point based on information {selected roaming candidate/new access point 55—[0058]; [0049]} provided by the roaming scan module 245. The roaming handoff module 250 exchanges messages {exam-messages can include a similar messages as is known in the art—i.e. indication--considered} with the selected access point.).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, McGill further teaches wherein the one or more roam triggers include a beacon miss roam trigger ([0057], roaming trigger module 240 of the 20, receives an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met. For example-a beacon have been missed.).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, McGill further teaches wherein the processing system, to cause the wireless station to receive the indication of the one or more roam triggers, is configured to cause the wireless station to receive the indication of the one or more roam triggers responsive to establishing the WPAN link (Fig. 4, [0057]-- roaming trigger module 240 {of 20—[0028]; [0025]} receives {from base station 30 over WLAN 25 link-see [0019]; Fig. 1} an interrupt indicating a roaming trigger has been met. Obvious to the indication of roam trigger to establish WLAN link).
McGill teaches WLAN/Wi-Fi ([0019]).
McGill does not teach WPAN.
However, in an analogous art, Ong teaches WPAN ([0029], The wireless devices 106 utilizes e a 1st wireless network (e.g., a WPAN and/or Wi-Fi network) to communicate with the network device 102.)
Since McGill already discloses WLAN/Wi-Fi network (as explained by the examiner above), But McGill fails to teach WPAN. Wherein Ong teaches both WLAN and WPAN networks and the both networks uses the same channels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have applied the additional functions WPAN disclosed by Ong to the Wi-Fi/WLAN of McGill to arrive the claimed invention. One would be motivated as such in order to provide network device determines to modify power level of Wi-Fi network 45% every 15 ms to improve communication with WPAN network. (Ong; [0042]).
9. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill (US 2021/0274444 A1) in view of Ong (US 2025/0031153 A1), further in view of Zhang (US 2017/0237814 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, McGill- Ong do not teach wherein the wireless station is a companion device associated with an internet of things (IoT) device.
However, in an analogous art, Zhang teaches wherein the wireless station is a companion device associated with an internet of things (IoT) device ([0017], IOT companion device 10.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to take the teaching of Zhang and apply them on the teaching of McGill- Ong to provide internet of things (IOT) companion device can be used to provide faster internet connection speed and in particular provide a boosted experience in areas of poor coverage (Zhang; [0032]).
10. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGill (US 2021/0274444 A1) in view of Ong (US 2025/0031153 A1), further in view of Hajduezenia (US 2022/0132373 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, McGill- Ong do not teach wherein the wireless station is connected to a first wireless access point (AP) associated with an extended service set (ESS), and wherein the roam handoff candidate is a second wireless AP associated with the ESS.
However, in an analogous art, Hajduezenia teaches wherein the wireless station(user device) is connected to a first(one) wireless access point (AP) associated with an extended service set (ESS), and wherein the roam handoff candidate is a second(another) wireless AP associated with the ESS ([0034], When changing position and roaming between APs within the ESS (all sharing the same SSID), a handoff needs to take place, where the user device switches from the one AP within the ESS to another AP within the same ESS.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to take the teaching of Hajduezenia and apply them on the teaching of McGill- Ong to provide network allows the user device to perform a handoff from one AP to another AP in the premises, thus avoiding service interruption including performance degradation and loss of service (Hajduezenia; [0002] & [0032]).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHEDI S ALEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0439. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Thus, Fri: 9-5. 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, Jeffrey M Rutkowski can be reached at 571-270-01215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/MEHEDI S ALEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights