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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TAIWAN 113105432 filed on 2/16/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 3/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 13 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, it is suggested to amend “comprises selecting …” in line 6 with “comprising selecting …” for correction of a typographical error and for clarity.
In claim 13, it is suggested to amend the claim as follows for clarity and for consistency with its parallel claim 4:
“…, wherein the connection determining condition further comprises a channel utilization and a hop count of the adjacent access point.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the access points” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend with “the plurality of access points”.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites a limitation “the access points” in lines 3, 9, and 12 and another limitation “the clients” in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent bases for the limitations in the claim. It is suggested to amend with “the plurality of access points” and “the plurality of clients”.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14-17:
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14-17 recite a limitation “the clients”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend with “the plurality of clients”.
Regarding claims 4, 9, 13, and 18:
Claims 4, 9, 13, and 18 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chennichetty et al. (US 2021/0120454 A1, hereinafter Chennichetty) in view of He et al. (US 2026/0181732 A1, hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 1:
Chennichetty teaches an access point steering method (see, Chennichetty: Abstract; Fig. 1B; and para. [0025], “an example multi-AP wireless network environment employing client steering”), comprising:
performing a priority list generating step comprising configuring a controller (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, Root AP 110) to select at least one priority client from a plurality of clients (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, STA1-STA4) according to a priority rule (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 5; para. [0145], “FIG. 5 shows an example of wireless device profiles in a steering ranking list 500.”; para. [0146], “The wireless device profiles 511-515 can be used by an AP, such as the APs 110-116, depicted and described in FIGS. 1A and 1B, or the AP 300, depicted and described, in FIG. 3, to make steering decisions. Aspects of the wireless device profiles 511-515 may be provided to an AP in a variety of ways. For example, the wireless device profiles 511-515 may be pre-designated by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and provided to the AP upon initial association. In another example, the wireless device profiles 511-515 may be learned by the AP after the initial association.”; Fig. 6, block 604; and para. [0169], “At block 604, a steering ranking list can be generated. The steering ranking list, such as the steering ranking list 500, depicted and described in FIG. 5, can be generated by the AP, or the processor at the AP. In some implementations, the steering ranking list can be generated at block 604 if either of the two conditions (i.e., the RSSI value determination at block 602, or the channel utilization determination at block 603) is satisfied. In some implementations, the steering ranking list can be pre-generated, whereas in some other implementations, the steering ranking list can be dynamically generated. The steering ranking list can include one or more wireless device, or client, capability categories, such as the capability categories 420 or the capability categories 520, depicted and described in FIGS. 4 and 5, respectively, in relation to one or more wireless devices, such as the wireless devices 501-505, depicted and described in FIG. 5. The steering ranking list can include consolidated weights, such as the consolidated weights 550, depicted and described in FIG. 5, and device steering ranks, such as the device steering ranks 570, depicted and described in FIG. 5, for each of the one or more wireless devices.”; para. [0170], “In some implementations, before the processor generates the steering ranking list at block 604, the processor can be configured to determine if the wireless device profile-based steering bit is enabled, or set.”; para. [0013], “selectively steering the at least one wireless device occurs based on an order of the steering ranking list. In some implementations, the processing system is further configured to update the steering ranking list after each attempt to selectively steer the at least one wireless device to the different wireless association in the multi-AP environment.”).
Chennichetty does not explicitly teach wherein performing a measuring requesting step comprising configuring the controller to send a measuring request to one of a plurality of access points (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, APs 111-116), which is signally connected to the at least one priority client, and configure the at least one priority client to measure a signal strength value between an adjacent access point of the access points and the at least one priority client.
In the same field of endeavor, He teaches wherein performing a measuring requesting step comprising configuring the controller to send a measuring request to one of a plurality of access points, which is signally connected to the at least one priority client, and configure the at least one priority client to measure a signal strength value between an adjacent access point of the access points and the at least one priority client (see, He: Fig. 4 and para. [0172], “The first AP may actively send the scanning synchronization message to the one or the plurality of second APs based on a detection requirement, where the scanning synchronization message indicates a target scanning channel, and the target scanning channel is an operating channel of the first AP, in other words, the scanning synchronization message indicates the one or the plurality of second APs to switch from the scanning channel to the operating channel of the first AP. After receiving the scanning synchronization message, all the one or the plurality of second APs may switch from the scanning channel to the operating channel of the first AP simultaneously or simultaneously as much as possible, and based on the following step 402 and step 403, when receiving a coordinated scanning measurement request sent by the first AP, send, on the operating channel of the first AP (that is, a switched scanning channel), a measurement request to one or more terminal devices associated with the first AP. In this way, the first AP can obtain, in one time of coordinated scanning measurement, signal strengths between more second APs and the one or more terminal devices associated with the first AP.”, supports are found in Abstract, Fig. 4, and para. [0171] of CN 119497126 A);
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Chennichetty in combination of the teachings of He in order for the first AP to obtain signal strength between more second Aps and the one or more terminal devices associated the first AP (see, He: Abstract and para. [0172], supports are found in Abstract, Fig. 4, and para. [0171] of CN 119497126 A).
Chennichetty further teaches wherein performing a determining step comprising configuring the controller to determine whether a connection determining condition of the adjacent access point is corresponding to a predetermined condition, wherein the connection determining condition comprises the signal strength value (see, Chennichetty: para. [0083], “The serving AP selection unit may compare the estimated performance for the candidate paths with the QoS profile of the stations STA1-STA4 when selecting an appropriate target AP.”; Fig. 6, block 602; and para. [0165], “if the RSSI values of the monitored traffic flow associated with a wireless device do not meet the particular RSSI threshold value for the serving AP, the serving AP may mark the wireless device for steering to a neighboring AP, and particularly one where the wireless device's RSSI values may meet, or exceed, that neighboring AP's RSSI threshold value.”); and
performing a steering step comprising configuring the controller to steer the at least one priority client to establish a connection with the adjacent access point when the connection determining condition is corresponding to the predetermined condition (see, Chennichetty: para. [0165], “In some multi-AP environment implementations, the serving AP can send a steering-related message to the neighboring AP, and also can send a steering request to the wireless device, where the steering request instructs the wireless device to join a basic service set (BSS) of the neighboring AP.”; Fig. 6, block 605; and para. [0171], “At block 605, steering may be initiated, based on an order in the steering ranking list. The AP, or the processor at the AP, may initiate steering of one or more wireless devices in a multi-AP environment, based on the order of the wireless devices in the steering ranking list. The order of the wireless devices can be based on the device steering ranks. In some implementations, the AP/band steering software module 336, depicted and described in FIG. 3, can initiate the steering of the one or more wireless devices based on the ranked order appearing in the steering ranking list. For example, the wireless device having the highest device steering ranking can be the first wireless device attempted to be steered from a first AP to a second AP, or from a first frequency band on the first AP to a second frequency band on the first AP. As a corollary, the wireless device having the second highest device steering ranking can be the second wireless device attempted to be steered to a different wireless association in the multi-AP environment, and so on.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Chennichetty in view of He teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chennichetty further teaches wherein the priority rule comprises dividing the clients into a plurality of priority levels according to an application category used by each of the clients currently, and when at least one of the clients is corresponding to a first priority level of the priority levels, the at least one of the clients is the at least one priority client (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 5 and para. [0184], “selectively steering the at least one wireless device occurs based on an order of the steering ranking list. For example, a wireless device having the highest consolidated weight, such as the consolidated weights 550, depicted and described in FIG. 5, and therefore the highest device steering rank, such as the device steering ranks 570, depicted and described in FIG. 5, may be the first wireless device considered for steering, or selected for steering, or both. The wireless device having the next highest (or greatest) consolidated weight, and therefore the highest (or greatest) device steering rank, may be the next wireless device considered for steering, or selected for steering, or both, and so on.”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Chennichetty in view of He teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chennichetty further teaches wherein the connection determining condition further comprises a channel utilization and a hop count of the adjacent access point (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B and para. [0082], “The selection of the target path may consider the QoS profile (such as the traffic type, capacity requirement, and delay requirement) of the second station STA2. For example, the second AP 112 may compare the estimated performance of candidate paths from each of the APs 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116, to the root AP 110. The estimated performance may be based on the backhaul channel utilization or the available airtime estimate for each fronthaul channel available at the APs 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116.”; para. [0044], “steering the wireless device may be based on a QoS profile. The QoS profile may be a capacity requirement (which also may be referred to as a traffic demand) or a delay requirement associated with a traffic flow of the device. In some implementations, the capacity requirement may represent a minimum amount of capacity (through a path to the root AP or gateway) that is needed to service the device. In some implementations, the delay requirement may represent a maximum amount of delay (through a path to the root AP or gateway) that is acceptable for the QoS profile. In this disclosure, a delay may be quantified as a time period or may be quantified as a hop count. A hop count refers to the number of links (between serving APs, intermediate APs, and the root AP) that are used in a path. A first path having a higher hop count may be considered as having a higher delay than a second path having a lower hop count.”).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Chennichetty in view of He teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Chennichetty further teaches wherein the another connection determining condition further comprises a channel utilization of the another adjacent access point (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B and para. [0076], “the APs 110-116 may exchange information about channel utilization, network traffic flow, backhaul network conditions, network bandwidth availability, or the like.”; para. [0082], “The selection of the target path may consider the QoS profile (such as the traffic type, capacity requirement, and delay requirement) of the second station STA2. For example, the second AP 112 may compare the estimated performance of candidate paths from each of the APs 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116, to the root AP 110. The estimated performance may be based on the backhaul channel utilization or the available airtime estimate for each fronthaul channel available at the APs 111, 113, 114, 115 and 116.”).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards an access point steering system (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B and para. [0025], “an example multi-AP wireless network environment employing client steering”), comprising: a plurality of access points (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, APs 111-116); a plurality of clients (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, STA1-STA4) signally connected to the access points; and a controller (see, Chennichetty: Fig. 1B, Root AP 110) signally connected to the access points, and configured to implement an access point steering method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards the access point steering system of claim 10 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the access point steering system of claim 10 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the access point steering system of claim 17 that is further limited to similar features to claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-8, 12, and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights