DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja et al. (US 2016/0112935, “Ahuja”) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0007274, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Ahuja discloses a station comprising:
- one or more processors, coupled to memory, configured to (See 630 & 640 Fig.6, a processor and a memory):
- generate a probe request for access point discovery, the probe request identifying a scan dwell time of the station and a priority (See Fig.2 and ¶.51,
PNG
media_image1.png
304
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the STA1 initiates the targeted scan by broadcasting a probe request on channel N at time t0. As described above, channel N represents the channel on which the STA1 had prior communications with the AP 110. Therefore, the STA1 may expect to find the AP 110 on channel N. The STA1 then remains on channel N for an extended dwell time, after broadcasting the probe request, to listen for a probe response from the AP 110; See ¶.53, the order of scanning may be prioritized based on the saved channel information stored by the STA1. More specifically, the STA1 may scan the saved channels (e.g., for saved-profile APs) before scanning the remaining wireless channels; See ¶.49, when a STA becomes associated with the AP, that STA may store AP profile such as priority information to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP; Examiner’s Note: Park further explicitly discloses the limitation “a probe request identifying a priority”);
- transmit the probe request to be received by an access point (See Fig.2, STA transmits a probe request to AP);
- receive from the access point a probe response (See Fig.2, STA receives a probe response), the probe response identifying a metric comprising a time that the access point responds to probe requests (See ¶.51, the STA1 may expect to find the AP on channel N. The STA1 then remains on channel N for an extended dwell time (e.g., from time t1 to t4), after broadcasting the probe request, to listen for a probe response from the AP 110; See ¶.52, the STA1 may typically expect to receive a probe response from the AP at time t1. However, due to channel congestion and/or other sources of delay, the actual probe response may not be received until time t3 (e.g., after the standard dwell time has expired)); and
- responsive to the probe response, adjust the scan dwell time of the station for subsequent probe requests (See ¶.52, the extended dwell time increases the likelihood that STA1 will receive a probe response from the AP (e.g., and/or another saved-profile AP), particularly when there may be congestion and/or interference on the channel; See ¶.56, because the STA does not receive a probe response by the end of the standard dwell time, at time t4, it then proceeds by broadcasting a probe request on the next available channel. The STA subsequently receives a probe response, at time t5, before the standard dwell time expires (e.g., at time t6); See ¶.57, increasing the dwell time when scanning the saved channels increases the likelihood of receiving a probe response from a corresponding AP. This may further reduce the number of rescans that need to be performed by the STA; See ¶.58, a corresponding AP may determine the dwell time of the STA from the VSIE included in a received probe request, and may continuously transmit (and retransmit) a probe response to the STA for the duration of the dwell time (e.g., until the dwell time expires). This may further increase the likelihood that the STA will receive at least a copy of the probe response while remaining on the AP's channel).
Ahuja discloses that “when a STA becomes associated with the AP, that STA may store AP profile such as priority information to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP (See ¶.49)”, but does not explicitly disclose what Park discloses,
- a probe request identifying a priority (Park, See ¶.8, the probe request frame includes a service set identifier (SSID) list representing the multiple APs and the scanning priority may include the priority for each of the multiple APs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “a probe request identifying a priority” as taught by Park into the system of Ahuja, so that it provides a way of receiving to the probe request frame from at least one of the multiple APs sequentially based on the scanning priority (Park, See ¶.8).
Regarding claim 2, Ahuja discloses “the access point is further configured to respond to the probe request within the identified scan dwell time based at least on the priority of the probe request (See ¶.25, “dynamically” scanning the available wireless channels in a manner which prioritizes the scanning of saved channels over other wireless channels; See ¶.53, the order of scanning may be prioritized based on the saved channel information stored by the STA1. More specifically, the STA1 may scan the saved channels (e.g., for saved-profile APs) before scanning the remaining wireless channels; See ¶.57, More specifically, prioritizing the scanning of saved channels may reduce the time needed to locate an AP since there is a greater likelihood of finding a saved-profile AP on one of the saved channels; See ¶.61, this may significantly increase the likelihood that the STA will receive at least one of the probe responses within the duration of its dwell time).”
Regarding claim 3, Ahuja discloses “the metric comprises an average response time for the access point to respond to the probe requests (See Fig.2 and ¶.52, standard dwell time for the probe response).”
Regarding claim 4, Ahuja discloses “the probe request comprises a field identifying the metric, the field comprising a customized field or a standard-defined field, wherein the metric comprises at least the scan dwell time or a priority value, the priority value including at least one of a low priority value, a normal priority value, or a high priority value (See ¶.52, the extended dwell time is longer than a standard dwell time of the STA1. In other words, the STA1 may typically expect to receive a probe response from the AP at time t1. However, due to channel congestion and/or other sources of delay, the actual probe response may not be received until time t3 (e.g., after the standard dwell time has expired; See ¶.49, when a STA becomes associated with the AP, that STA may store AP profile such as priority information to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP; See ¶.50, standard dwell time).”
Regarding claim 5, Ahuja discloses “adjust the scan dwell time based at least on the metric, the metric comprising at least one of channel congestion, channel utilization, or an average response time for the probe requests (See ¶.11, by increasing the dwell time of the STA when scanning the one or more saved channels; See ¶.52, the extended dwell time is longer than a standard dwell time of the STA1. In other words, the STA1 may typically expect to receive a probe response from the AP 110 at time t1. However, due to channel congestion and/or other sources of delay, the actual probe response may not be received until time t3 (e.g., after the standard dwell time has expired). Thus, if STA1 was not performing a targeted scan operation in accordance with the present embodiments, it would only remain on channel N for the duration of the standard dwell time (e.g., until time t2), and would therefore miss the probe response from the AP. The extended dwell time increases the likelihood that STA1 will receive a probe response from the AP (e.g., and/or another saved-profile AP), particularly when there may be congestion and/or interference on the channel).”
Regarding claim 6, Ahuja discloses “the access point is a collocated access point (See ¶.69, the transceiver can be used to scan the surrounding environment to detect and identify nearby access points (e.g., access points within wireless communication range of the STA ) and/or other STAs. For some embodiments, the transceiver can be used to search for nearby access points by periodically transmitting MAC address request frames (e.g., probe requests). The GNSS module can be used to determine the current location of the STA , for example, using triangulation techniques; See ¶.70, the AP profile store may include a plurality of storage locations, each for storing at least a channel number and SSID associated with the corresponding APs and/or WLANs).”
Regarding claim 9, Ahuja and Park disclose “adjust the dwell time for at least one of an authentication request, an association request, a reassociation request, or an add block acknowledgement (ADDBA) request based on an average response time for a corresponding request provided by the access point (Ahuja, See ¶.9, a method of operating an AP is also disclosed, whereby the AP receives a probe request from a STA. The probe request includes information identifying a first channel number and a first service set identifier (SSID). The AP compares the first channel number and the first SSID with a respective channel number and SSID associated with the AP, and selectively transmits a probe response to the STA based on the comparison. For example, the AP may transmit the probe response if the first channel number matches the channel number associated with the AP and the first SSID matches the SSID associated with the AP; See ¶.49, When a STA becomes associated with the AP 110, that STA may store AP profile information (e.g., SSID, PSK (Pre-Shared Key), key management information, priority information, etc.) in memory to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP; Park, See Fig.4 and ¶.54-56, active scanning /authentication /association protocol). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it is a station claim corresponding to the claim 1, except the following limitations and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim;
- while waiting for the probe response during the scan dwell time, determine that the probe response from the access point has yet to be received at a point during the scan dwell time (Ahuja, See Fig.2-3, extend dwell time because expected probe response has not received yet); and
- dynamically increase, responsive to the determination, the scan dwell time while waiting for the probe response from the access point (Ahuja, See ¶.54, a dynamic scan operation performed by a STA; See ¶.57, the dynamic scan operation described above may significantly reduce the overall time needed to establish communications with an AP. More specifically, prioritizing the scanning of saved channels may reduce the time needed to locate an AP since there is a greater likelihood of finding a saved-profile AP on one of the saved channels. Moreover, increasing the dwell time when scanning the saved channels increases the likelihood of receiving a probe response from a corresponding AP. This may further reduce the number of rescans that need to be performed by the STA).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 5 and further discloses the method of “dynamically increase the scan dwell time (See ¶.57)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is a claim corresponding to the claims 1, 2, & 5 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, Ahuja discloses “suspend transmission of the probe response upon determining that the probe response cannot be scheduled within the scan dwell time (See ¶.8, the probe request broadcast by the STA may include information specifying a length of the extended duration. Upon receiving such information, the AP may repeatedly transmit probe responses to the STA for the length of the extended duration. Further, for some embodiments, the STA may transmit an acknowledgment (ACK) frame to the AP upon receiving each probe response. For example, the probe response may be encapsulated in an action frame which triggers the STA to respond with the ACK frame. The AP may then stop transmitting the probe response upon receiving the ACK frame from the STA).”
Regarding claim 15, Ahuja discloses “transmit the probe response to the station via a second access point associated with the station, wherein the second access point is identified based on a basic service set identifier (SSID) included in the probe request (See ¶.3, the STA may broadcast a probe request on each of the available channels and listen for a probe response from the AP. If, after scanning all available channels, the STA does not receive a probe response from any of the saved-profile APs (e.g., due to congestion and/or interference on the channels), the STA may initiate another full scan; See ¶.52, accordingly, the extended dwell time increases the likelihood that STA1 will receive a probe response from the AP (e.g., and/or another saved-profile AP), particularly when there may be congestion and/or interference on the channel; See ¶.2-3, when a STA becomes associated with (e.g., connected to) an AP, the STA typically stores a service set identifier (SSID) of the AP in memory to facilitate subsequent connections to that AP (e.g., saved-profile AP)).”
Regarding claim 16, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of Park and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0280460, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 7, Ahuja and Park do not explicitly disclose what Kim disclose “receive the metric via a reduced neighbor report of the collocated access point (Kim, See ¶.155, the beacon frame may include a reduced neighbor report (RNR) element for indicating information of a neighbor AP. The RNR element may be used to notify a station of the information of the neighbor AP, and the station may receive the beacon frame and recognize the neighbor AP through the RNR element included in the beacon frame; Fig.11 and ¶.156, neighbor report (RNR) element format).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “receiving the metric via a reduced neighbor report of the collocated access point” as taught by Kim into the system of Ahuja and Park, so that it provides a way of recognizing the neighbor AP through the RNR element (Kim, See ¶.155).
Regarding claim 8, Ahuja and Kim discloses “scan the collocated access point based at least on the average response time for probe requests of the collocated access point or the congestion metric obtained” (Ahuja discloses as rejected in claim 3), but does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “from the reduced neighbor report, or scan the collocated access point using multi-link probing (Kim, See ¶.155, the beacon frame may include a reduced neighbor report (RNR) element for indicating information of a neighbor AP. The RNR element may be used to notify a station of the information of the neighbor AP, and the station may receive the beacon frame and recognize the neighbor AP through the RNR element included in the beacon frame; ¶.10, a multi-link device (MLS) including multiple stations operating in multiple stations; See Fig.11, MLD parameters field format). Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Ahuja discloses “dynamically increase the scan dwell time based at least on localized interference, the localized interference comprising at least one of an energy detection frame or an overlapping basic service set frame (See ¶.3, the STA does not receive a probe response from any of the saved-profile APs (e.g., due to congestion and/or interference on the channels), the STA may initiate another full scan),” but Ahuja and Park do not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “at least one of an energy detection frame or an overlapping basic service set frame (Kim, See ¶.142, the second station (STA 2) transmits second data (Data 2) in the second link (Link 2). In this case, a transmission time of the second data (Data 2) and a transmission time of the response (ACK for Data 1) to the first data (Data 1) may overlap. In this case, due to the transmission to the second station (STA 2) in the second link (Link 2), interference in the first link (Link 1) may occur. Therefore, the first station (STA 1) may fail to receive the response (ACK for Data 1) to the first data (Data 1); See ¶.144, the multi-link may perform energy detection in another link).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “at least one of an energy detection frame or an overlapping basic service set frame” as taught by Kim into the system of Ahuja and Park, so that it provides a way of occurring interference in the link by the one of the signal/frame (Kim, See ¶.142).
Regarding claim 17, it is a claim corresponding to the claims 5 & 7 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0294354, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 18, Ahuja discloses an access point comprising:
- one or more processors, coupled to memory, configured to (See 720 & 730 Fig.7):
- receive a probe request from a station, the probe request identifying a scan dwell time of the station (See Fig.2, STA transmits a probe request to AP and dwell time);
- determine that the access point is unable to transmit a probe response within the scan dwell time of the station (See Fig.5B and ¶.68, AP stops sending probe response; See ¶.52, the standard dwell time has expired);
- skip transmitting the probe response (See Fig.5B and ¶.68, AP stops sending probe response);
- queue the probe request until the probe response until resolution of the probe request occurs (See ¶.49, when a STA becomes associated with the AP, that STA may store AP profile such as priority information to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP; See ¶.11, by increasing the dwell time of the STA when scanning the one or more saved channels, the method of operation disclosed herein may increase the likelihood that the STA receives a probe response from a saved-profile AP. This may further reduce the overall scan time and/or number of attempts needed to establish a connection with the AP. Moreover, enabling the AP to continuously transmit (and retransmit) probe responses for the duration of the STA's dwell time further increases the likelihood that the STA will receive a probe response from a saved AP before leaving the saved channel;; See ¶.52, Accordingly, the extended dwell time increases the likelihood that STA1 will receive a probe response from the AP 110 (e.g., and/or another saved-profile AP), particularly when there may be congestion and/or interference on the channel).
Ahuja does not explicitly disclose what Zhang discloses,
- while the probe request is queued, ignore duplicate probe requests from the station (Zhang, See ¶.78, if an AP receives multiple Probe Request frames, the AP may transmit one Probe Response frame as a response to the multiple requests. Similarly a beacon may be used as a probe response, thus eliminating duplicate transmission of the same information. Additionally, Probe Response frames may include information regarding BSSs whose primary channel is other than the scanned channel so that the number of channels to be scanned may be reduced; See Fig.2, the probe request is saved/queued for the following procedures; Examiner’s Note; it is not necessary to queue/store the duplicated probe requests to save the processing resource such as memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “while the probe request is queued, ignore duplicate probe requests from the station” as taught by Zhang into the system of Ahuja, so that it provides a way of eliminating duplicate transmission of the same information (Zhang, See ¶.78).
Regarding claim 19, Ahuja does not explicitly disclose what Zhang discloses “detect the duplicate probe requests from the station (Zhang, See ¶.78, if an AP receives multiple Probe Request frames, the AP may transmit one Probe Response frame as a response to the multiple requests. Similarly a beacon may be used as a probe response, thus eliminating duplicate transmission of the same information. Additionally, Probe Response frames may include information regarding BSSs whose primary channel is other than the scanned channel so that the number of channels to be scanned may be reduced; See Fig.2, the probe request is saved/queued for the following procedures).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Ahuja discloses “prioritize the probe response based on a priority value associated with the probe request, wherein the priority value includes at least one of a low priority value, a normal priority value, or a high priority value (See ¶.52, the extended dwell time is longer than a standard dwell time of the STA1. In other words, the STA1 may typically expect to receive a probe response from the AP at time t1. However, due to channel congestion and/or other sources of delay, the actual probe response may not be received until time t3 (e.g., after the standard dwell time has expired; See ¶.49, when a STA becomes associated with the AP, that STA may store AP profile such as priority information to facilitate subsequent connections to the AP; See ¶.50, standard dwell time; See ¶.53, the order of scanning may be prioritized based on the saved channel information stored by the STA1).”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights