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 .
This action is response to the application filed on 10/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 10/30/2024, 04/24/2025 and 06/23/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings Figures 2A and 4A are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because there is a lack of descriptive text legends for Figures 2A and 4A (i.e. In Figure 2A; a document table 201; document cover 202; print sheet discharge port 204, etc… which are not described in the description of Figures 2A and 4A). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicants are required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claims limitation “a changing unit configured to change”, “a control unit configured to perform”, “the control unit performs control”, “a receiving unit configured to receive” and “a measuring unit configured to measure”, “a transmitting unit configured to transmit” and “a configured to be connect”, in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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)(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, 10, 11, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeuchi (U.S 2020/0137568).
For claim 1:
Takeuchi discloses an electronic apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor which function (see Takeuchi, at least paragraph [0020]-[0023]; device comprises memory and processor) as:
a changing unit configured to change an access point serving as a connection destination based on a change request of an access point serving as a connection destination received from a connected access point function (see Takeuchi, at least Figure 7; change a connection received from a connected access point function); and a control unit configured to perform control so that the changing unit is prevented from changing the access point serving as the connection destination to a second access point as a connection destination after the change (see Takeuchi, at least paragraph [0004]; the station changes the access point to which it is connected, it is not preferable that the station is connected to an access point having lower security than the first access point and [0096]; the Wi-Fi connection is established between the printer 10 and the AP establishment of a Wi-Fi connection having a security level lower than the security level of the Wi-Fi connection with the AP 6 can be prevented between the printer 10 and the AP 7), the second access point being a candidate for a change destination based on the change request and configured to be connected using a second authentication method different in type from a first authentication method used to connect to a first access point connected before the change of the connection destination (see Takeuchi, at least Figure 8; Obtain Authentication Scheme and Encryption S12 Scheme in Scheme Information and Obtained Authentication Scheme is ranked the Same as or Higher than Current Authentication Scheme? (Enterprise> Personal (DPP > PSK)).
For claim 10:
Takeuchi further discloses wherein the type of the first authentication method is one of
a Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) method,
a Pre Shared Key (PSK) method,
an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method, and
an OPEN method, and the type of the second authentication method is another one of the SAE method, the PSK method, the EAP method, and the OPEN method different from the type of the first authentication method (see Takeuchi, at least paragraph [0024]-[0025]; EAP, PSK, SAE).
For claim 11:
Takeuchi further discloses wherein the type of the first authentication method is one of personal and enterprise, and the type of the second authentication method is another one of personal and enterprise (see Takeuchi, at least paragraph [0024]; the authentication schemes are classified into enterprise-type authentication scheme and personal-type authentication scheme).
For claim 17:
Takeuchi further discloses a printing unit configured to execute a printing process based on print data received via an access point (see Takeuchi, at least paragraph [0104]; the process of causing the print executing unit 18 to execute print in accordance with the print data representing the notification image is an example of “notification process).
For claim 19:
For claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to cause one or more computers to function, which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
For claim 20:
For claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a method, which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Takeuchi (U.S 2020/0137568) in view of Li et al. (U.S 2018/0014165).
For claim 14:
In addition to rejection in claim 14, Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic apparatus performs connection to an access point and a process compliant with an IEEE 802.11ax standard.
Li, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Takeuchi fails: the communication technique may be used during wireless communication between electronic devices in accordance with a communication protocol, such as: an IEEE 802.11 standard (which is sometimes referred to as Wi-Fi). For example, the communication technique may be used with IEEE 802.1lax (see Li, at least paragraph [0047]; [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Li. The motivation for doing this is to improve network security and the mobile node is prevented from inadvertently roaming to rogue access point.
For claim 15:
In addition to rejection in claim 15, Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic apparatus performs at least one of a process compliant with Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) and a process compliant with Target Wake Time (TWT).
Li, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Takeuchi fails: communication operations performed with the electronic device, during a target wake-up time (TWT) window or at times other than a TWT window and OFDMA allocation parameters), (electronic device 4, electronic device 5, OFDMA allocation parameters), and (electronic device 6, single user) (see Li, at least paragraph [0128]-[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Li. The motivation for doing this is to improve coexistence with other systems operating in bands where trigger-based access is expected to result in improved communication performance.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Takeuchi (U.S 2020/0137568) in view of IEEE: LAN/MAN Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, IEEE P802.11-REVme™/D4.1, Draft Standard for Information Technology-Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-Specific Requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, October 2023, paragraphs 10.46, 12.12.2, and 27.3.1.2; hereinafter “IEEE P802.11-REVme™/D4.1”.
For claim 16:
In addition to rejection in claim 16, Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic apparatus changes the connection destination to an access point using a 6 GHz frequency band by changing the connection destination based on the change request.
IEEE P802.11-REVme™/D4.1, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Takeuchi fails: using a 6 GHz frequency band (see IEEE P802.11-REVme™/D4.1, at least section 12.12.2 Security constraints in the 6 GHz band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by IEEE P802.11-REVme™/D4.1. The motivation for doing this is to improve coexistence with other systems operating in bands.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated Takeuchi (U.S 2020/0137568) in view of Sun et al. (CA-3116393-A1).
For claim 18:
In addition to rejection in claim 18, Takeuchi does not explicitly disclosewherein the control unit performs control based on an authentication method of the candidate access point.
Sun, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses what Takeuchi fails: the control node may alternatively directly use the plurality of neighboring APs as a plurality of candidate second APs of the terminal (see Sun, at least paragraph [0132]; [0135]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Sun. The motivation for doing this is to improve experience of a terminal user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made or recorded and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Cho et al. (U.S 2017/0164414), discloses using a management device to change an access point to which a station is connected from a first access point to a second access point having higher security than the first access point.
Tomeba et al. (U.S 2018/0242358), discloses subsequently to the authentication procedure, the STA transmits a connection request frame to the AP to perform the connection procedure. Upon reception of the connection request frame, the AP determines whether or not to allow connection of the STA and transmits a connection response frame to notify whether or not to allow the connection.
Anantha et al. (U.S 2020/0162917), discloses the AP can prevent transmission of confirmation requests to unintended primary guest devices.
Otake et al. (U.S 9,098,716), discloses authentication system for an instruction processing apparatus includes first and second authentication portions each for performing user authentication at the time of using the instruction processing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN-HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
/LAN-HUONG TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
09/30/2026
Prosecution Insights