DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 28, 2026 has been entered. Prior to the Amendment, claims 1-12 were pending in the application. By the Amendment, claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 were amended, and no claim was canceled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 remain pending and ready for examination.
The amendments change the scope of the previously presented claims. The new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action are necessitated by such amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Withdrawal of Objections to Claims
In view of the corrections/clarification of claims in the Amendment, the objections to claims 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 made in the previous Office Actions are now withdrawn..
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 recite various limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis. The following corrections are recommended.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for channel selection at an access point (AP) of a multi-channel communication network operating at a current channel, the method comprising the AP:
determining current channel interference of the current channel, wherein the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic;
scanning one or more other channels to determine one or more target channel utilizations of the one or more other channels, wherein [the] a target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources;
selecting one of the one or more other channels as a new channel for the AP based on
(i) the current channel interference,
(ii) the one or more target channel utilizations, and
(iii) channel powers for the current channel and the one or more other channels; and
switching operations to the new channel.
6. (currently amended) The method of claim 5, wherein selecting the new channel further comprises the AP:
determining whether the AP has an edge-of-cell station;
upon determining that the AP has an edge-of-cell station,
selecting one of the one or more target channels having the lowest target channel utilization as the new channel, wherein the edge-of-cell station is able to communicate using the new channel; and
upon determining that the AP has no edge-of-cell station,
(i) determining whether a configured final decision method is based on lowest target channel utilization or based on highest channel power,
(ii) selecting one of the one or more target channels having the lowest target channel utilization among the one or more target channels with equal or higher channel power as the new channel upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the lowest target channel utilization, and
(iii) selecting one of the one or more target channels having the highest channel power as the new channel upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the highest channel power.
7. (currently amended) An access point (AP) comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor, coupled to the memory and operative to:
determine current channel interference of a current channel, wherein the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic;
scan one or more other channels to determine one or more target channel utilizations of the one or more other channels, wherein [the] a target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources;
select one of the one or more other channels as a new channel for the AP based on
(i) the current channel interference,
(ii) the one or more target channel utilizations, and
(iii) channel powers for the current channel and the one or more other channels; and
switch operations to the new channel.
12. (currently amended) The method of claim 11, wherein selecting the new channel further comprises the AP being [is] adapted to:
determining whether the AP has an edge-of-cell station;
upon determining that the AP has an edge-of-cell station,
selecting one of the one or more target channels having the lowest target channel utilization as the new channel, wherein the edge-of-cell station is able to communicate using the new channel; and
upon determining that the AP has no edge-of-cell station,
(i) determining whether a configured final decision method is based on lowest target channel utilization or based on highest channel power,
(ii) selecting one of the one or more target channels having the lowest target channel utilization among the one or more target channels with equal or higher channel power as the new channel upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the lowest target channel utilization, and
(iii) selecting one of the one or more target channels having the highest channel power as the new channel upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the highest channel power.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2022/0417809)(“Kneckt”) in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -20201.
Regarding claim 1, Kneckt teaches a method (See, e.g., Fig. 9) for channel selection at an access point (AP) (See, Fig. 9, #112, “AP MLD”) of a multi-channel communication network (See, Fig. 9, #s 903a, 903b and 903c) operating at a current channel (Fig. 9, #903a), the method comprising the AP:
determining current channel interference2 of the current channel (See, e.g., Fig. 9, #906; and ¶[0117], “the determination of parameters (e.g., 906) may ….be based on any of various factors… the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions;” and ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”);
scanning one or more other channels to determine one or more target channel utilizations of the one or more other channels (See, Fig. 9, #906; ¶[0117], “the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions, load levels, emphasis added;” and ¶[0123], an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs.” “The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”);
selecting one of the other channels as a new channel (Fig. 9, #903c) for the AP based on
(i) the current channel interference (See, e.g., Fig. 9, #906; and ¶[0117], “the determination of parameters (e.g., 906) may ….be based on any of various factors… the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions;” and ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”),
(ii) the one or more target channel utilizations (See, ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”), and
(iii) channel powers for the current channel and the one or more other channels (See, ¶[0104], the regulatory power levels of the post-switch AP may need to be obtained before a STA may operate with the AP on the new channel;” and ¶[0118], “the AP may be operating in a moving device and the device may move to a location that allows the AP to operate using higher transmission power in the new band. The AP may switch to a new channel in order to be able to operate on higher power.”); and
switching operations to the new channel (See, Fig. 9, #914; and ¶[0143], “The AP MLD may perform the channel switch, e.g., the first affiliated AP may perform the channel switch from first channel 903a to third channel 903c (914)”).
Kneckt, while teaching the channel switching/selection in consideration of the channel utilization (See, e.g., ¶¶[0117] and [0123]), fails to teach explicitly that the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic, and that the target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources.
IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teaches that the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic, and that the target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources (See, p. 1066, “9.4.2.27 BSS Load element,” reproduced below. “The Channel Utilization field is defined as the percentage of time, linearly scaled with 255 representing 100%, that the AP sensed the medium was busy, as indicated by either the physical or virtual carrier sense (CS) mechanism.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
779
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt to incorporate the above definition of channel utilization provided by IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 as such definition would have been recognized by a person having an ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as a technical fact. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.I.
Regarding claim 2/1, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Kneckt further teaches that, before selecting the new channel, the AP determines that at least one station communicating with the AP on the current channel is an edge-of-cell station (See, Kneckt, ¶[0121], “the AP may have associated STAs that are at the edge of the coverage, but consume a lot of transmission resources. The AP may perform channel switch in order to lower the coverage of the BSS and stop serving these STAs to have more resources available for other associated STAs.”).
Regarding claim 4/1, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Kneckt further teaches that, before selecting the new channel, the AP determines that the current channel interference is above a specified interference threshold level (See, ¶[0139], “the non-AP MLD may determine that the channel switch may allow an additional RAT to operate, e.g., with coexistence interference below a threshold;” and ¶[0208], if interference at the non-AP MLD is above a threshold on the new channel (e.g., due to activity of other radios or other links of the non-AP MLD and/or activity of other devices), the non-AP MLD may determine to terminate the link and may signal accordingly to the AP MLD. Such termination of the link will initiate another channel switch operation, i.e., selecting a new channel.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kneckt et al. teaches an access point (AP) (Fig. 9, #112 (“AP MLD”)) comprising:
a memory (See, Fig, 4, #s 250 and 260; and ¶[0067]); and
at least one processor (Fig. 4, #204), coupled to the memory and operative (See, ¶[0067]) to:
determine current channel interference3 of the current channel (See, e.g., Fig. 9, #906; and ¶[0117], “the determination of parameters (e.g., 906) may ….be based on any of various factors… the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions;” and ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”);
scan one or more other channels to determine one or more target channel utilizations of the one or more other channels (See, Fig. 9, #906; ¶[0117], “the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions, load levels, emphasis added;” and ¶[0123], an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs.” “The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”);
select one of the other channels as a new channel (Fig. 9, #903c) for the AP based on
(i) the current channel interference (See, e.g., Fig. 9, #906; and ¶[0117], “the determination of parameters (e.g., 906) may ….be based on any of various factors… the AP MLD may determine to perform the channel switch and/or select parameters based on channel conditions;” and ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”),
(ii) the one or more target channel utilizations (See, ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.”), and
(iii) channel powers for the current channel and the one or more other channels (See, ¶[0104], the regulatory power levels of the post-switch AP may need to be obtained before a STA may operate with the AP on the new channel;” and ¶[0118], “the AP may be operating in a moving device and the device may move to a location that allows the AP to operate using higher transmission power in the new band. The AP may switch to a new channel in order to be able to operate on higher power.”); and
switch operations to the new channel (See, Fig. 9, #914; and ¶[0143], “The AP MLD may perform the channel switch, e.g., the first affiliated AP may perform the channel switch from first channel 903a to third channel 903c (914)”).
Kneckt, while teaching the channel switching/selection in consideration of the channel utilization (See, e.g., ¶¶[0117] and [0123]), fails to teach explicitly that the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic, and that the target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources.
IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teaches that the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic, and that the target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs and/or other interfering sources (See, p. 1066, “9.4.2.27 BSS Load element,” reproduced below. “The Channel Utilization field is defined as the percentage of time, linearly scaled with 255 representing 100%, that the AP sensed the medium was busy, as indicated by either the physical or virtual carrier sense (CS) mechanism.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
779
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt to incorporate the above definition of channel utilization provided by IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 as such definition would have been recognized by a person having an ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as a technical fact. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.I.
Regarding claim 8/7, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach an AP comprising all of the elements recited in claim 7 as discussed above.
Kneckt et al. further teaches that, before selecting the new channel, the AP is adapted to determine that at least one station communicating with the AP on the current channel is an edge-of-cell station (See, ¶[0139], “the non-AP MLD may determine that the channel switch may allow an additional RAT to operate, e.g., with coexistence interference below a threshold;” and ¶[0208], if interference at the non-AP MLD is above a threshold on the new channel (e.g., due to activity of other radios or other links of the non-AP MLD and/or activity of other devices), the non-AP MLD may determine to terminate the link and may signal accordingly to the AP MLD. Such termination of the link will initiate another channel switch operation, i.e., selecting a new channel.”).
Regarding claim 10/7, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach an AP comprising all of the elements recited in claim 7 as discussed above.
Kneckt et al. further teaches that, before selecting the new channel, the AP is adapted to determine that the current channel interference is above a specified interference threshold level (See, ¶[0139], “the non-AP MLD may determine that the channel switch may allow an additional RAT to operate, e.g., with coexistence interference below a threshold;” and ¶[0208], if interference at the non-AP MLD is above a threshold on the new channel (e.g., due to activity of other radios or other links of the non-AP MLD and/or activity of other devices), the non-AP MLD may determine to terminate the link and may signal accordingly to the AP MLD. Such termination of the link will initiate another channel switch operation, i.e., selecting a new channel.”).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 in further view of Chen et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2015/0071186) (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 3/2, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach a method comprising all of the elements recited in claim 2 as discussed.
Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020, however, fails to teach explicitly that the AP determines that the at least one station is an edge-of-cell station based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the at least one station being below a specified SNR threshold level.
Chen teaches that the AP determines that the at least one station is an edge-of-cell station based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the at least one station being below a specified SNR threshold level (See, Fig. 6, #s604 and 605; and ¶[0058], In operation 604, the AP categorizes a station as a cell-edge Station based on SNRs from its associated AP (SNR1) and the strongest AP among others (SNR2). The strongest AP among others may be the AP from which the station receives the strongest signal. Thus, at operation 604 it is determined whether SNR1 < Threshold1 and SNR2 /SNR1 > Threshold2. If the result of the determination is positive, the UE will be added to a Cell-Edge Stations List at operation 605.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Chen, i.e., scheduling of transmissions between competing/interfering APs, in order to suppress the adverse effects of the interferences experienced at UEs at the cell-edge (See, e.g., Chen, ¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 9/8, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach an AP comprising all of the elements recited in claim 8 as discussed.
Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020, however, fails to teach explicitly that the AP is adapted to determine that the at least one station is an edge-of-cell station based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the at least one station being below a specified SNR threshold level.
Chen teaches that the AP is adapted to determine that the at least one station is an edge-of-cell station based on SNR for the at least one station being below a specified SNR threshold level (See, Fig. 6, #s604 and 605; and ¶[0058], In operation 604, the AP categorizes a station as a cell-edge Station based on SNRs from its associated AP (SNR1) and the strongest AP among others (SNR2). The strongest AP among others may be the AP from which the station receives the strongest signal. Thus at operation 604 it is determined whether SNR1 < Threshold1 and SNR2 /SNR1 > Threshold2. If the result of the determination is positive, the UE will be added to a Cell-Edge Stations List at operation 605.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Chen, i.e., scheduling of transmissions between competing/interfering APs, in order to suppress the adverse effects of the interferences experienced at UEs at the cell-edge (See, e.g., Chen, ¶[0047]).
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 and in further view of Aguirre et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2018/0132288)(“Aguirre”).
Regarding claim 5/1, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 1 as discussed above.
Kneckt further teaches that selecting the new channel comprises, for at least one other channel, the AP:
determining that the target channel utilization of the other channel is less than the current channel interference4 (See, ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.);
determining that the channel power of the other channel is greater than or equal to the channel power of the current channel (See, ¶[0104], the regulatory power levels of the post-switch AP may need to be obtained before a STA may operate with the AP on the new channel;” and ¶[0118], “The AP may switch to a new channel in order to be able to operate on higher power.”).
Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020, however, fails to teach explicitly adding the other channel to a list of one or more target channels.
Aguirre teaches adding the other channel to a list of one or more target channels (See, e.g., Fig. 5, #570; ¶[0085], ‘base station 220 may determine the set of available channels using a threshold. …. whether a measurement associated with the channel satisfies a threshold based on an RSSI value, an SINR value, and/or another measurement value related to the channel (e.g., a predetermined threshold or a threshold configured by a network operator);” ¶[0111], “base station 220 may determine whether to add or remove a particular channel from the set of available channels;” ¶[0114], “base station 220 may order channels for selection based on the RSSI value, the SINR value, traffic, or the like, in addition to a set of real-time or near real-time channel utilization profiles:” ¶[0124], “base station 220 may determine the score using information related to an RSSI value for each channel, an amount of traffic on each channel, an amount of radiated power permitted when communicating via each channel, and/or the like;” and ¶[0109], “base station 220 may update the set of available channels”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Aguirre, i.e., maintaining and updating running list of available channels, in order to avoid having to repeatedly “re-determine” the entire set of available channels (See, e.g., Aguirre, ¶[0088], “In this way, base station 220 conserves processing resources by preventing base station 220 from having to re-determine the set of available channels each time.”).
Regarding claim 6/5, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 and in further view of Aguirre teach a method comprising all elements recited in claim 5 as discussed above.
Aguirre further teaches that selecting the new channel (See, e.g., Fig. 6; ¶[0021], “the base station may process … information related to various channels and ranks the channels for selection based on the information satisfying a threshold value;” and ¶[0020], “the information related to the channel may indicate a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value for the channel, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) value for the channel, a traffic load for the channel, a maximum amount of radiated power permitted when communicating via channel”.) further comprises the AP:
determining whether the AP has an edge-of-cell station (See, ¶[0075], “base station 220 may determine … such as when user device 210 is located at, or near, an edge of a licensed carrier coverage area.”);
upon determining that the AP has an edge-of-cell station (See, e.g., ¶[0075], “enabling base station 220 to dynamically permit user device 210 to operate in an aggregation mode based on whether user device 210 is in range of base station 220 and/or WLAN gateway device 230.”),
selecting the target channel having the lowest target channel utilization as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0093], “base station 220 may order a first channel before a second channel based on the first channel … having less traffic relative to the second channel”.), wherein the edge-of-cell station is able to communicate using the new channel (See, ¶[0001], allows wireless carriers to boost coverage in their wireless networks by using the unlicensed 5 GHz band already populated by Wi-Fi devices. LTE-wireless local area network (WLAN) aggregation (LWA) is a specification developed by the third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in an effort to standardize operation of LTE in the Wi-Fi bands. In addition, license assisted access (LAA) is a 3GPP effort to standardize operation of LTE in the Wi-Fi bands;” ¶[0075], “base station 220 may determine to permit operation in a second aggregation mode (e.g., an LWA aggregation mode) when user device 210 is located within a threshold distance from WLAN gateway device 230 and/or base station 220, such as when user device 210 is located at, or near, an edge of a licensed carrier coverage area;” and ¶[0076], “This improves communications between base station 220 and another device when network conditions would otherwise interfere with the communications.”); and
upon determining that the AP has no edge-of-cell station (See, e.g., ¶[0075], “enabling base station 220 to dynamically permit user device 210 to operate in an aggregation mode based on whether user device 210 is in range of base station 220 and/or WLAN gateway device 230.” Aguirre teaches a scenario where there is no edge-of-cell station.),
(i) determining whether a configured final decision method is based on lowest target channel utilization or based on highest channel power (See, e.g., [0126], “base station 220 may determine a first score when an RSSI value, an amount of traffic, and/or the amount of radiated power permitted for a channel satisfies a first threshold and a second score when an RSSI value, an amount of traffic, and/or an amount of radiated power permitted satisfies a second threshold;” ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable;” and [0136], “base station 220 may determine the order, the rank, or the priority based on a value of the score satisfying a threshold. For example, base station 220 may determine a higher priority for a first channel relative to a second channel based on a score associated with the first channel satisfying a threshold and a score associated with the second channel satisfying a different threshold.” Aguirre teaches the priority between the channel utilization, and the radiated power is up to the network operator that configures the selection of the respective thresholds.),
(ii) selecting the target channel having the lowest target channel utilization (See, e.g., ¶[0114], “base station 220 may use the total channel occupancy time to determine an order of the channel and/or the other channel, determine when to select the other channel (e.g., based on the total occupancy time for the channel satisfying a threshold)”.) among the target channels with equal or higher channel power as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0138], “ base station 220 may select the channel based on a result of a comparison of a first score and a second score … base station 220 may select the channel ordered first relative to other channels, the channel that has the highest rank or priority relative to other channels, the channel that has an order, a rank, or a priority that satisfies a threshold”. A channel with higher radiated power would be given the higher score. Accordingly, a channel with higher power would be selected.) upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the lowest target channel utilization (As discussed above, the network operator is able to configure the priority by selecting the proper threshold values. See, e.g., ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable”.), and
(iii) selecting the target channel having the highest channel power as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0139], base station 220 may select a channel associated with a particular radio band (e.g., a U-NII-3 radio band) over a channel associated with another radio band (e.g., a U-NII-1 radio band), such as when a higher amount of radiated power is permitted when communicating via the particular radio band relative to the other radio band.) upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the highest channel power (As discussed above, the network operator is able to configure the priority by selecting the proper threshold values. See, e.g., ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Aguirre, i.e., the scoring/ranking based channel selection and allowing a near-edge user by LTE-Wifi band aggregation, in order to increases a traffic capacity and/or a coverage area; to reduce channel selection time; and to improves data throughput (See, e.g., Aguirre, ¶[0013]).
Regarding claim 11/7, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 teach an AP comprising all elements recited in claim 7 as discussed above.
Kneckt further teaches that selecting the new channel comprises, for at least one other channel, the AP is adapted to:
determine that the target channel utilization of the other channel is less than the current channel interference5 (See, ¶[0123], “an AP MLD may have too much use on one AP and too little use on other APs. The AP MLD may use channel switching in various ways to rebalance the traffic loads between APs. The AP MLD may change the under used APs to new channels in order to get more traffic to them. The AP MLD may change the most used AP to other channel in order to divide the AP utilization more evenly.);
determine that the channel power of the other channel is greater than or equal to the channel power of the current channel (See, ¶[0104], the regulatory power levels of the post-switch AP may need to be obtained before a STA may operate with the AP on the new channel;” and ¶[0118], “The AP may switch to a new channel in order to be able to operate on higher power.”).
Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020, however, fails to teach explicitly the AP being adapted to add the other channel to a list of one or more target channels.
Aguirre teaches the AP being adapted to add the other channel to a list of one or more target channels (See, e.g., Fig. 5, #570; ¶[0085], ‘base station 220 may determine the set of available channels using a threshold. …. whether a measurement associated with the channel satisfies a threshold based on an RSSI value, an SINR value, and/or another measurement value related to the channel (e.g., a predetermined threshold or a threshold configured by a network operator);” ¶[0111], “base station 220 may determine whether to add or remove a particular channel from the set of available channels;” ¶[0114], “base station 220 may order channels for selection based on the RSSI value, the SINR value, traffic, or the like, in addition to a set of real-time or near real-time channel utilization profiles:” ¶[0124], “base station 220 may determine the score using information related to an RSSI value for each channel, an amount of traffic on each channel, an amount of radiated power permitted when communicating via each channel, and/or the like;” and ¶[0109], “base station 220 may update the set of available channels”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Aguirre, i.e., maintaining and updating running list of available channels, in order to avoid having to repeatedly “re-determine” the entire set of available channels (See, e.g., Aguirre, ¶[0088], “In this way, base station 220 conserves processing resources by preventing base station 220 from having to re-determine the set of available channels each time.”).
Regarding claim 12/11, Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 and in further view of Aguirre teach an AP comprising all elements recited in claim 11 as discussed above.
Aguirre further teaches that selecting the new channel (See, e.g., Fig. 6; ¶[0021], “the base station may process … information related to various channels and ranks the channels for selection based on the information satisfying a threshold value;” and ¶[0020], “the information related to the channel may indicate a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value for the channel, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) value for the channel, a traffic load for the channel, a maximum amount of radiated power permitted when communicating via channel”.) further comprises the AP being is [sic] adapted to:
determine whether the AP has an edge-of-cell station (See, ¶[0075], “base station 220 may determine … such as when user device 210 is located at, or near, an edge of a licensed carrier coverage area.”);
upon determining that the AP has an edge-of-cell station (See, e.g., ¶[0075], “enabling base station 220 to dynamically permit user device 210 to operate in an aggregation mode based on whether user device 210 is in range of base station 220 and/or WLAN gateway device 230.”),
select the target channel having the lowest target channel utilization as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0093], “base station 220 may order a first channel before a second channel based on the first channel … having less traffic relative to the second channel”.), wherein the edge-of-cell station is able to communicate using the new channel (See, ¶[0001], allows wireless carriers to boost coverage in their wireless networks by using the unlicensed 5 GHz band already populated by Wi-Fi devices. LTE-wireless local area network (WLAN) aggregation (LWA) is a specification developed by the third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in an effort to standardize operation of LTE in the Wi-Fi bands. In addition, license assisted access (LAA) is a 3GPP effort to standardize operation of LTE in the Wi-Fi bands;” ¶[0075], “base station 220 may determine to permit operation in a second aggregation mode (e.g., an LWA aggregation mode) when user device 210 is located within a threshold distance from WLAN gateway device 230 and/or base station 220, such as when user device 210 is located at, or near, an edge of a licensed carrier coverage area;” and ¶[0076], “This improves communications between base station 220 and another device when network conditions would otherwise interfere with the communications.”); and
upon determining that the AP has no edge-of-cell station (See, e.g., ¶[0075], “enabling base station 220 to dynamically permit user device 210 to operate in an aggregation mode based on whether user device 210 is in range of base station 220 and/or WLAN gateway device 230.” Aguirre teaches a scenario where there is no edge-of-cell station.),
(i) determine whether a configured final decision method is based on lowest target channel utilization or based on highest channel power (See, e.g., [0126], “base station 220 may determine a first score when an RSSI value, an amount of traffic, and/or the amount of radiated power permitted for a channel satisfies a first threshold and a second score when an RSSI value, an amount of traffic, and/or an amount of radiated power permitted satisfies a second threshold;” ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable;” and [0136], “base station 220 may determine the order, the rank, or the priority based on a value of the score satisfying a threshold. For example, base station 220 may determine a higher priority for a first channel relative to a second channel based on a score associated with the first channel satisfying a threshold and a score associated with the second channel satisfying a different threshold.” Aguirre teaches the priority between the channel utilization, and the radiated power is up to the network operator that configures the selection of the respective thresholds.),
(ii) select the target channel having the lowest target channel utilization (See, e.g., ¶[0114], “base station 220 may use the total channel occupancy time to determine an order of the channel and/or the other channel, determine when to select the other channel (e.g., based on the total occupancy time for the channel satisfying a threshold)”.) among the target channels with equal or higher channel power as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0138], “ base station 220 may select the channel based on a result of a comparison of a first score and a second score … base station 220 may select the channel ordered first relative to other channels, the channel that has the highest rank or priority relative to other channels, the channel that has an order, a rank, or a priority that satisfies a threshold”. A channel with higher radiated power would be given the higher score. Accordingly, a channel with higher power would be selected.) upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the lowest target channel utilization (As discussed above, the network operator is able to configure the priority by selecting the proper threshold values. See, e.g., ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable”.), and
(iii) select the target channel having the highest channel power as the new channel (See, e.g., ¶[0139], base station 220 may select a channel associated with a particular radio band (e.g., a U-NII-3 radio band) over a channel associated with another radio band (e.g., a U-NII-1 radio band), such as when a higher amount of radiated power is permitted when communicating via the particular radio band relative to the other radio band.) upon determining that the configured final decision method is based on the highest channel power (As discussed above, the network operator is able to configure the priority by selecting the proper threshold values. See, e.g., ¶[0104], “the threshold may be configured by a network operator and may be dynamically configurable”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above teachings of Kneckt in view of IEEE Std 802.11TM -2020 to incorporate the above teaching of Aguirre, i.e., the scoring/ranking based channel selection and allowing a near-edge user by LTE-Wifi band aggregation, in order to increases a traffic capacity and/or a coverage area; to reduce channel selection time; and to improves data throughput (See, e.g., Aguirre, ¶[0013]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, i) the prior art references relied upon in support of the rejections in the previous Office Action, namely, Kneckt, fails to teach the definitional language newly added to the amended claims 1 and 7, i.e., "The current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic;” and "The target channel utilization of an other channel is a percentage of time that the other channel is busy due to traffic of one or more other APs or other interfering sources,” see, Amendment at p. 6; and ii) Kneckt fails to teach the limitation newly added to the amended claims 6 and 12, i.e., “wherein the edge-of-cell station is able to communicate using the new channel,” see, id.
Both of the above arguments are now moot in light of the new grounds of rejections presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
1) Desai et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 2024/0373247) teaches various aspects pertinent to the claimed invention, including the determination of a near an edge of coverage UE (See, e.g., Fig. 7, the description thereof; and ¶¶[0020]-[0022], [0027], [0030], [0034], [0037] and [0038]);
2) Huang et al. (US Published Patent Application No. US 20180279130) teaches various aspects pertinent to the claimed invention, including a channel selection based on the transmitted power (See, e.g., Fig. 3, #320 & #350; Fig 8, #862, and the description thereof; and ¶¶[0120]-[0131]); and
3) Panje (US Published Patent Application No. US 2022/0053404) teaches various aspects pertinent to the claimed invention, including the claimed channel selection parameters (See, Fig. 3, #200 and #300, and the description thereof; and ¶[0087]).
The new grounds of rejections presented in this Office Action were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KI S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM - 5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/K.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2418 August 11, 2026
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
1 “IEEE Standard for Information Technology—Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems
Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Specific Requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, February 26, 2021, Pp. 1-4378.
2 Applicant cites para. [0005] (reproduced below in pertinent part) of the specification as originally filed (“Specification”) admittedly in response to the claim objection made in the previous Office Action, and for providing the support for the newly added claim language, i.e., “wherein the current channel interference of the current channel is a percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the AP's own traffic”. See, Amendment at p. 5.
However, as can be seen from the cited portion of the Specification, despite the intention to clarify, the added claim language appears to create a further ambiguity due to the inaccurate labeling, i.e., between the “Current Channel Utilization” and the “Current Channel Interference.” That is, according to the Specification, the added language provides the definitional language for the “Current Channel Utilization,” and not for the claimed “Current Channel Interference.”
“Other conventional parameters include:
Current Channel Utilization: The percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to an AP?s own traffic;
Current Channel Interference: The percentage of time that the current channel is busy due to the traffic of other APs or other interfering sources; and
Target Channel Utilization: The percentage of time that a different, available (aka target) channel is busy due to the traffic of other APs or other interfering sources.” Specification, at ¶[0005].
Notwithstanding the discrepancy in the labeling, i.e., in the claims vs. in the Specification, relying on the added definitional language, for the purpose of the examination, the claim limitation, “current channel interference,” is construed to mean the “Current Channel Utilization” as described in the Specification. It is recommended that the claims to be further amended in a manner consistent with the Specification.
Moreover, it should be noted that as the above cited portions of the Specification, Applicant has ostensibly admitted that these channel utilizations and interferences are parameters conventionally known in the art. Based on Applicant’s own admission, and as outlined in the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action, Applicant’s reliance on these features, that were well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, in support of distinction from the prior art of record is without any persuasion.
3 See footnote 2 above.
4 See, footnote 2 above.
5 See, footnote 2 above.
Prosecution Insights