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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horn et al (hereinafter “Horn”), US Pub. 2007/002796 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Horn discloses methods and systems of handing off an access terminal in a meshed wireless system, comprising an access point (AP) in communication with a plurality of mesh nodes of a local network (see fig. 1, an AP 104d communicates with plurality of APs), the access point configured to identify an application traversing the access point to a connection of a client device via a first mesh node of the plurality of mesh nodes (p. [0037]: the stamp may signify where the first byte in the frame is located within the packet stream… The packet stream identified by the stamp may be associated with one or many application(s)); wherein the access point is configured to detect that the connection of the client device has roamed from the first mesh node to a second mesh node of the plurality of mesh nodes and identify that the connection communicates the application (p. [0007]: As an access terminal roams through the meshed wireless system, it may require hand off from a serving access point to a target access point. As part of the handoff procedure, the connection between the access terminal and the WAN is rerouted through the meshed wireless system to the target access point); and wherein the access point, responsive to the detection of the client device roaming, is configured to communicate an instruction to the first mesh node to transfer a state of the connection to the second mesh node, wherein responsive to the instruction, the first mesh node communicates via a second connection between the first mesh node and the second mesh node the state of the connection and one or more packets of the application stored on the first mesh node (p. 0039]: . As the access terminal 110 continues along this path, it will eventually be handed off to the access point 104e. This access point 104e is referred to as the "target" access point because it is the target of the handoff. As will be explained in greater detail shortly, the intermediate access point 104b facilitates the handoff by communicating to the target access point 104e the connection state between the serving access point 104d and the access terminal 110 when the handoff occurs. The "connection state" includes any information that an access point can use to determine the data in the meshed wireless system that remains to be delivered to an access terminal following handoff.)
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Horn discloses the second mesh node is configured to use the state of the connection and one or more packets of the application transferred from the first mesh node to avoid re-transmission of the one or more packets of the application via the connection between the second mesh node and the client device (p. [0006]: Data between an access terminal and the wide area network is routed from one access point to another until the data reaches a wired access point. A wired access point connects the access points to the rest of the WAN. The access points can route the data through the meshed wireless system to accommodate varying traffic demands, handoffs, and access point failures; p. [0039]: The "connection state" includes any information that an access point can use to determine the data in the meshed wireless system that remains to be delivered to an access terminal following handoff.)
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 18, Horn discloses wherein the second connection comprises a backhaul connection between the first mesh node and the second mesh node (p. [0031]: the clusterhead 104a has a radio link with access points 104b, 104c, respectively. The access point 104b also has a radio link with access point 104d, 104e. The wireless technology used to support the radio links may vary depending on the specific application and the overall design constraints imposed on the overall system; p.[ 0049]: The access point 104 includes an upstream transceiver 406 to support a radio link on the backhaul.)
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 19, Horn discloses wherein a band of a plurality of different bands between the first mesh node and the second mesh node are selected to use for the second connection (p. [0031]: the clusterhead 104a has a radio link with access points 104b, 104c, respectively. The access point 104b also has a radio link with access point 104d, 104e. The wireless technology used to support the radio links may vary depending on the specific application and the overall design constraints imposed on the overall system; p.[ 0049]: The access point 104 includes an upstream transceiver 406 to support a radio link on the backhaul.)
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.
The factual inquiries 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 3-5, 8-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn as shown above.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Horn does not disclose the system further comprising receiving, by the access point, identification of the application from a low latency controller operating on another device, the application being a low latency application. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention to guarantee customer of service.
Regarding claim 4, Horn does not disclose the system further comprising communicating, by the access point, identification of the low latency application to one of the first mesh node or the second mesh node. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Horn does not disclose the system further comprising identifying, by the access point, the application as a low latency application. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention to guarantee customer of service.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Horn does not disclose wherein the state of the connection comprises information identifying a status of authentication and association of the client device. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention to secure data transmission.
Regarding claim 9, Horn does not disclose the system further comprising communicating, by the access point responsive to the detection of the client device roaming, a second instruction to the second mesh node to receive the transfer of the state of the connection from the first mesh node. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Horn does not disclose wherein the state of the connection comprises information identifying a status of authentication and association of the client device. It would have been an obvious choice for a person with ordinary skill in the field at the time of invention to secure data transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights