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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11 – 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049).
Regarding Claim 1, Patil teaches a method for operation of a station in a wireless local area network, the method comprising: receiving a reduced neighbor report (RNR) from an access point (AP) (the RNR is broadcast by the AP (Sections 0030, 0031)), wherein the RNR includes one or more parameters related to security, verification status, or capabilities of neighbor APs (security domain (Section 0032) reads on security); parsing the RNR to determine the one or more parameters (processing to evaluate neighboring APs identified in RNR (Section 0032)); and scanning channels corresponding to one or more of the neighbor APs (Section 0005 indicates the scanning is conducted) based on the one or more parameters related to the security, the verification status, or the capabilities of the neighbor APs in the RNR (scanning for channels corresponding to one or more neighboring APs that belong to the same security domain).
Regarding Claim 12, Patil teaches a method for operation of an access point (AP) in a wireless local area network, the method comprising: collecting information regarding neighbor APs (gathering information regarding the APs (Section 0030)); generating a reduced neighbor report (RNR) (the RNR is broadcast by the AP (Sections 0030, 0031)), wherein the RNR includes one or more parameters related to security, verification status, or capabilities of the neighbor APs (security domain (Section 0032) reads on security); and sending the RNR to a station (the RNR is broadcast by the AP (Sections 0030, 0031)).
Regarding Claims 2, 13, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil further teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a security mode parameter that indicates a security mode of the neighbor APs (Section 0032, security domain reads on security mode).
Regarding Claims 8, 19, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil further teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs support STA privacy enhancements (Section 0032, security domains restrict user access thus providing a level of privacy).
Regarding Claim 11, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil further teaches comparing the one or more parameters from the RNR to a set of preferences for the station, and selecting which of the neighbor APs to scan based on the set of preferences (Section 0032, renders a scenario wherein the STA has a preference for APs belonging to the same security domain and scans (Section 0005) based on said preference).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Cherian et al. (US 2014/0355564)
Regarding Claims 3, 14, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1, 12. Patil further teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates that a same security mode is used for all APs (Section 0032, same security domain).
Patil does not teach all APs in an Extended Service Set (ESS).
Cherian, which also teaches the use of APs, teaches APs in an ESS (Section 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Cherian for the purpose of reducing signaling overhead during handoffs in order to improve handoff efficiency and to reduce dropped or delayed packets due to the signaling overhead during handoffs as taught by Cherian.
Claim(s) 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Chu et al. (US 2021/0314846)
Regarding Claim 4, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates that a same security mode is used for all APs in a multi-link device (MLD).
Chu, which also teaches the use of APs, teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates that a same security mode is used for all APs in a multi-link device (MLD) (Section 0053, same security policy reads on security mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Chu for the purpose of increasing throughput which is a benefit multi-link communications as taught by Chu.
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Okano (US 2010/0254285)
Regarding Claims 5, 16, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates that whether a Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2) only STA is operating on an Extended Service Set (ESS).
Okano, which also teaches a Wi-Fi system, teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates that whether a Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2) only STA is operating on an Extended Service Set (ESS) (Section 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Okano for the purpose of securing wireless traffic as taught by Okano.
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Son et al. (US 2016/0143058)
Regarding Claims 6, 17, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether a basic service set (BSS) is verified.
Son, which also teaches the use of APs, teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether a basic service set (BSS) is verified (Section 0097, verification of BSS identifiers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Son for the purpose of increasing a transmission opportunity and transmission rate of data by providing an efficient spatial reuse method in the overlapped BSS environment as taught by Son.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Gillett et al. (US 2014/0003261)
Regarding Claims 7, 18, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs are a moving AP or a static AP.
Gillett, which also teaches the use of APs, teaches wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs are a moving AP or a static AP (Section 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Gillett for the purpose of providing an improved way of determining when networks are likely to be available, so as to determine when to spend battery power on performing scans for WLAN networks as taught by Gillett.
Claim(s) 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Zeng et al. (US 2016/0353242)
Regarding Claims 9, 20, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 12. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs are available for location or ranging measurements.
Zeng, which also teaches the use of APs, teaches a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs are available for location or ranging measurements (plurality of APs (Section 0016), range measurements (Section 0014)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Zeng for the purpose of assisting with mobile platform positioning as taught by Zeng.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil et al. (US 2018/0368049) in view of Anantha et al. (US 2019/0362508)
Regarding Claim 10, Patil teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Patil does not teach wherein the one or more parameters includes a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs support sensing.
Anantha, which also teaches use of APs, teaches a parameter that indicates whether the neighbor APs support sensing (Section 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Patil with the above features of Anantha for the purpose of improving determinism for wireless networks via real-time object tracking as taught by Anantha.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights