DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/01/2024 and 12/202/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Claim 2 recites the limitation "the transmission and scheduling" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(2) Claim 4 recites the limitation "the smart hub" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(3) Claim 5 recites the limitation "the request" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(4) Claim 8 recites the limitation "the wireless network" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(5) Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one STA" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(6) Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least any of one STAs" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(7) Claim 9 recites the limitation "the appropriate action" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(8) Claim 9 recites the limitation "the shared contextual information" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(9) Claim 14 recites the limitation "the authorized parameter control response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(10) Claim 18 recites the limitation "the Quality of Service (QoS)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(11) Claim 20 recites the limitation "the identifiers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(12) Claim 20 recites the limitation "the one or more affected traffic flows" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(13) Claim 20 recites the limitation "the AP action request message" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
5. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAYAMON et al. (US 20190174435) (hereinafter TAYAMON) in view of Likar et al. (US 20180183662) (hereinafter Likar) (TAYAMON is filed in the IDS on 12/20/2024).
Regarding claim 1:
As shown in figures 1-8, TAYAMON discloses an access point (AP) (106 in figure 1, 500 in figure 5), comprising:
a memory (508 in figure 4); and
a processor (506 in figure 4) coupled with the memory (508 in figure 4) (par 0032-0034) and configured to:
receive (see step 302 in figure 3), from a host station (host STA) (102 in figure 1) (par 0018), a parameter control (transmission power control commands interpreted to be parameter control. See par 0006) request that requests authorization to provide contextual information to the AP (106 in figure 1) and control one or more basic service set (BSS) parameters for one or more stations (STAs) (102 in figure 1) associated with the AP (figure 7, par 0025, 0027, 0073);
transmit, to the host STA, a parameter control response that indicates authorization to the parameter control request (figures 3 and 7, par 0025, 0027, 0073).
TAYAMON discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching receive, from the host STA, contextual information associated with one or more BSS parameters for the one or more STAs.
However, Likar in the same field of endeavor teaches receive, from the host STA, contextual information associated with one or more BSS parameters for the one or more STAs (par 0028. Also see par 0022, 0030, 0036, 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method as taught by Likar to modify the system and method of TAYAMON in order to receive fast BSS parameters for wireless stations in the area that are not yet connected (par 0028) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 11:
As shown in figures 1-8, TAYAMON discloses a host station (host STA) (102 in figure 1 and 400 in figure 4) (par 0006, 0018), comprising:
a memory (408 in figure 4); and
a processor (406 in figure 4) coupled with the memory (408 in figure 4) and configured to:
transmit (see step 604 in figure 6), to an access point (AP) (106 in figure 1), a parameter control (transmission power control commands interpreted to be parameter control. See par 0006) request that requests authorization to provide contextual information to an AP (106 in figure 1) and control one or more Basic Service Set (BSS) parameters for one or more stations (STAs) (102 in figure 1) associated with the AP (see figure 6, par 0035-0036);
receive (see step 606 in figure 6), from the AP (106 in figure 1), a parameter control response that indicates authorization to the parameter control request (par 0037-0038).
TAYAMON discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching transmit, to the AP, contextual information associated with one or more BSS parameters for the one or more STAs.
However, Likar in the same field of endeavor teaches transmit, to the AP, contextual information associated with one or more BSS parameters for the one or more STAs (par 0028. Also see par 0022, 0030, 0036, 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method as taught by Likar to modify the system and method of TAYAMON in order to receive fast BSS parameters for wireless stations in the area that are not yet connected (par 0028) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 2:
TAYAMON further discloses wherein, based on the contextual information, the processor is further configured to control the transmission and scheduling parameters for one or more STAs (102 in figure 1) and the BSS parameters (figure 8, par 0045).
Regarding claim 6:
TAYAMON further discloses wherein upon receiving the authorization, the processor is configured to send an associated STA (102 in figure 1) report to the host STA identifying one or more STAs associated with the AP and parameters of the AP (106 in figure 1) including link characteristics and traffic characteristics (figure 8, par 0042, 0045).
Regarding claim 7:
TAYAMON further discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive from the host STA (102 in figure 1) a device type report identifying types of the one or more STAs associated with the AP and parameters of the AP (106 in figure 1) including traffic characteristics (figure 8, par 0042, 0045).
Regarding claim 14:
TAYAMON further discloses wherein the authorized parameter control (transmission power control commands interpreted to be parameter control. See par 0006) response enables the host STA to receive action control responses seeking particular types of contextual information (clear channel assessment (CCA) threshold interpreted to be particular types of contextual information. See figure 8) (figure 8, par 0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-5, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also overcome the above 25 USC 112(b) rejection.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, TAYAMON does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is further configured to transmit to the host STA one or more frames comprising information associated with a make of the AP and a capability of the AP to receive parameter control requests from the host STA.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to perform an authorization check upon receiving the parameter control request from the smart hub before responding to the parameter control request.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the parameter control request includes an authentication code, and one or more request types or identifiers of one or more STAs associated with the AP for which the request is applicable.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to receive the contextual information via an action request message from the host STA to perform an action on the BSS parameters or on the one or more STAs on behalf of the host STA, the action including: (i) setting up or removing a virtual BSS using login credentials; (ii) enabling or disabling availabilities of one or more STAs in the wireless network; (iii) enabling or disabling links with any of the one or more STAs if the STA is a multi-link device (MLD); (iv) increasing or decreasing a maximum supported bandwidth or number of spatial streams of the AP; (v) changing quality of service (QoS) criteria used for the at least one STA for all or designated traffic flows to the at least one STA of the one or more STAs; (vi) changing transmit power for signals sent from the at least one STA, (vii) changing an operating channel with the host STA; or (viii) restricting transmission of uplink or downlink frames for a specified time interval to or from the at least any of the STAs.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is further configured to propose changes to information transmitted by the AP in a wireless network based on the transmitted contextual information.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is further configured to receive from the AP one or more frames comprising information associated with a make and capabilities of the AP to receive parameter control requests.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the parameter control request includes an authentication code, one or more request types, and identifiers of one or more STAs associated with the AP for which the request is applicable.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to transmit an AP action request message to provide the AP with recommendations for taking different actions responsive to different network criteria and conditions.
The prior art of record, TAYAMON also does not teach or suggest wherein upon the processor identifying a critical STA of the one or more STAs having substandard performance that requires immediate improvement, the processor is configured to transmit the Quality of Service (QoS) requirements to the AP on behalf of the critical STA.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barriac et al. (US 9838940) disclose a method for deferral based on basic service set identification (BSSID) information includes receiving, on a shared access medium, a packet having at least one deferral-related parameter and deciding whether to defer transmission on the shared access medium based, at least in part, on the deferral-related parameter.
Ginzburg et al. (US 7522571) disclose a method for a wireless station operable in a wireless local area network, the wireless station capable of automatic discovery of other stations in a basic service set (BSS) which are capable of supporting direct link setup (DLS).
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights