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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on November 7, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office Action. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “receive a first request… from the first access point after the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point”. This limitation is logically contradictory and confusing. Once the electronic device has changed its connection destination to the second access point, it would establish communication with the second access point, not the first. The metes and bounds of the claim 3 are unclear as written.
Claims 4-5 depend from Claim 3, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed 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 (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.
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) 1, 2, 10-14, and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chennichetty et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210120454, hereinafter “Chennichetty”) in view of Iyer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120243474, hereinafter “Iyer”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Chennichetty unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 1, Chennichetty teaches An electronic device (Fig. 2, wireless station STA 200) that can communicate with an external access point (para [0040]: A device may select which AP (sometimes also referred to as a serving AP) to utilize from a plurality of APs in the multi-AP environment… a device may select a first AP and frequency band of the first AP based on the information available to the device,), comprising:
at least one processor and at least a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, and when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 2, para [0086]: The STA 200 also may include a processor 230, may include a memory 240, and may include a number of antennas 250(1)-250(n).) (para [0089]: In some other implementations, the contention engines 221 may be implemented as one or more software modules (such as stored in the memory 240, or stored in memory provided within the MAC device 220) containing instructions that, when executed by the processor 230, perform the functions of the contention engines 221.) acting as:
a connection unit configured to establish a connection between a first access point and the electronic device (para [0040]: A device may select which AP (sometimes also referred to as a serving AP) to utilize from a plurality of APs in the multi-AP environment… a device may select a first AP and frequency band of the first AP based on the information available to the device,),
a first reception unit configured to receive, from the first access point, a first change request to request change of a connection destination of the electronic device (para [0158]: the serving AP can send a steering-related message to the neighboring AP, and also can send a steering request (interpreted as “a first change request”) to the wireless device, where the steering request instructs the wireless device to join a basic service set (BSS) of the neighboring AP.),
a first change unit configured to change, on a basis of reception of the first change request, the connection destination of the electronic device to a second access point included in one or more access points corresponding to information included in the first change request (para [0158]: 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.), and
Chennichetty fails to disclose or teach a second change unit configured to change, on a basis of a predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request, the connection destination of the electronic device to the first access point without reception of a second change request to request change of the connection destination of the electronic device from the second access point.
In analogous art, Iyer teaches the limitation of:
a second change unit configured to change, on a basis of a predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request, the connection destination of the electronic device to the first access point without reception of a second change request to request change of the connection destination of the electronic device from the second access point (para [0119] of Iyer: In one embodiment, because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band (interpreted as “second access point”) during a pre-determined time period T 3390 (interpreted as “a basis of a predetermined amount of time elapsing”), the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel… after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, if client 3310 continues to transmit Probe Request… on the system's non-preferred communication band, the system will transmit a Probe Response… on the system's non-preferred communication band (interpreted as “first access point”).) (para [0120] of Iyer: In yet another embodiment, the system draws the inference that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band if AP 3320 receives more than a threshold number of Probe Requests within a pre-determined threshold time period T without receiving any Probe Request on the system's preferred communication band.) (para [0126] of Lyer: after receiving a number of Probe Requests on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any Probe Requests on the system's preferred communication band, the system determines whether a pre-determined threshold time period has lapsed (not shown). If so, the system will transmit a wireless return signal (e.g., a Probe Response) to the client (operation 3460)... )
Examiner’s note: Iyer discloses a timer-based fallback mechanism in wireless steering environment (see para [0024] of Iyer), wherein if a client device persists in attempting to connect to its original/preferred state and a pre-determined time period (T) has elapsed, the system allows the client to revert to its previous connection without issuing an additional steering command (see paragraphs [0119], [0126] of Iyer). Examiner respectfully notes that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), in standard IEEE 802.11 network architecture (see para [0003] of Iyer), different frequency bands (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) broadcasted by a single physical router operate as distinct logical access points, each identified by a unique Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID). Therefore, switching between bands constitutes changing the connection destination between distinct access points from the perspective of the client device’s MAC layer. Even if the claim were narrowly construed to require physically separate access point hardware, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 stands. Both Chennichetty (AP steering) and Iyer (Band steering) address the identical problem of managing wireless client associations (BSS transitions) under network-controlled steering.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the timer-based fallback mechanism of Iyer- which allows a client to revert to its previous connection after a predetermined time-to the network-controlled AP steering system of Chennichetty. Applying this known technique to a similar BSS transition process to yield the predictable result of preventing permanent disconnection is a simple design choice and well within the ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).)
Regarding Claim 19, it is a method claim corresponding to the electronic device claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to Claim 19, except limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an information processing apparatus” (para [0095] of Chennichetty: The memory 240 also may include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 19.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1,
Iyer teaches wherein the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request and
Chennichetty further teaches the first access point being included in one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device (Fig. 1A and para [0087]: The transceivers 211 may be coupled to the antennas 250(1)-250(n), either directly or through an antenna selection circuit (not shown for simplicity). The transceivers 211 may be used to transmit signals to and receive signals from the APs 110-116, depicted and described in FIGS. 1A and 1B, or other non-depicted wireless devices, and may be used to scan the surrounding environment to detect and identify nearby APs or other wireless devices (i.e., within a wireless range of the STA 200).).
Regarding Claim 10, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request and
Iyer further teaches the electronic device not currently operating as an access point.
Iyer explicitly teaches that the system allows the client to fall back to its previous/preferred connection state after a predetermined time period (T) because various “client-specific circumstances” may necessitate the client need to persist on that specific connection (para [0119] of Iyer: because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band during a pre-determined time period T 3390, the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel. Other client-specific circumstances may also necessitate the client's need to be persistent on communicating on the client's preferred communication band instead of the system's communication band. Therefore, according to one embodiment, after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, if client 3310 continues to transmit Probe Request (e.g., Probe Request 3366 which is transmitted by client 3310 at time t8 and received by AP 3320 at time t9) on the system's non-preferred communication band, the system will transmit a Probe Response (e.g., Probe Response 3367 which is transmitted by AP 3320 at time t10 and received by client 3310 at time t11) on the system's non-preferred communication band.).
Regarding Claim 11, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request and a frequency band of the first access point and a frequency band of the second access point being identical .
Chennichetty explicitly teaches a network-controlled steering system where a Multi-AP (MAP) controller steers stations to other access points based on various network factors, specifically including changes in load balance, channel conditions, and local interference (see para [0059]: … the root AP 110 may use the MAP Controller 135 to steer one more of the stations STA1-STA4 to other APs or may steer one more of the APs 111-116 to other frequency bands (or both) based on a number of factors that may include, for example, changes in load balance on the APs 110-116, changes in traffic patterns of the network, changes in locations of the stations STA1-STA4, changes in bandwidth or service needs of the stations STA1-STA4, changes in channel conditions, changes in interference, changes in operating channels… ). Furthermore, Chennichetty distinguishes the act of steering stations to other APs from the act of steering Aps to other frequency bands (see paragraphs [0059],[0066]). It is well known in the art, and directly supported by Chennichetty’s teachings on mitigating localized interference and balancing loads, that a network will steer a client device from a first AP to a second AP where both Aps operate on an identical frequency band (e.g., steering between 5 GHz Aps on different channels or covering different spatial areas) to optimize connectivity without requiring a full band transition.
Iyer teaches a timer-based fallback mechanism designed to prevent permanent disconnection when a client fails to successfully associate with a steered connection destination and persists in its previous state.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the timer-based fallback mechanism of Iyer to the intra-band (identical frequency band) AP steering system of Chennichetty. The motivation to combine these teaching is to prevent prolonged network disconnection and ensure connection stability when a client device is steered between two access points on the same frequency band to avoid interference (as taught by Chennichetty), but fails to smoothly transition to the new AP. Applying a known timeout recovery logic to a standard same-band steering environment represents a predicable use of known elements according to their established functions and constitutes a simple design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, further acting as: Chennichetty further teaches
a search unit configured to search for one or more access points surrounding the electronic device on a basis of reception of a predetermined operation by a user on the electronic device (para [0156]: the steering ranking list 500 can be statically defined, such as through a configuration protocol by an AP entity. Alternatively, the steering ranking list can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud by one or more user, retail carriers or enterprise customers.),
a display unit configured to display information of the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device (para [0103]: the STA 200 includes a user interface (UI) (such as a touchscreen or keypad) and a display, which may be integrated with the UI to form a touchscreen display.), and
a reception unit configured to receive from a user a selection operation to select one of the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device (para [0103]: the STA 200 includes a user interface (UI) (such as a touchscreen or keypad) and a display, which may be integrated with the UI to form a touchscreen display.) (para [0156]: the steering ranking list 500 can be statically defined, such as through a configuration protocol by an AP entity. Alternatively, the steering ranking list can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud by one or more user, retail carriers or enterprise customers.),
wherein the first access point is an access point selected by the selection operation (para [0156]:… the steering ranking list can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud by one or more user, retail carriers or enterprise customers.), and
a connection between the first access point and the electronic device is established on a basis of reception of the selection operation from a user (para [0156]: the steering ranking list 500 can be statically defined, such as through a configuration protocol by an AP entity. Alternatively, the steering ranking list can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud by one or more user, retail carriers or enterprise customers.).
Regarding Claim 13, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, further acting as: Chennichetty further teaches
an information reception unit configured to receive connection information for connecting to an access point from an information processing apparatus external to the electronic device (para [0156]: Alternatively, the steering ranking list (interpreted as “connection information”) can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud (interpreted as “from an information processing apparatus external to the electronic device”) by one or more user, retail carriers or enterprise customers. In some implementations, a user, retail carrier or enterprise customer can program, arrange or sort the steering ranking list through an application programming interface (API).) ,
wherein the first access point is an access point corresponding to the connection information, and a connection between the first access point and the electronic device is established on a basis of reception of the connection information (para [0156]: the steering ranking list (interpreted as “connection information”)) (para [0183]: The at least one wireless device may be selectively steered to the different wireless association based, at least in part, on the steering ranking list.).
Regarding Claim 14, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 13, further acting as: Chennichetty further teaches
an information transmission unit configured to transmit information of the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device to the information processing apparatus (para [0156]: the steering ranking list 500 can be statically defined, such as through a configuration protocol by an AP entity. Alternatively, the steering ranking list can be statically defined, such as through a graphical user interface (GUI) or via a wireless controller from the cloud by one or more user (interpreted as “an information transmission unit configured to transmit information of the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device”), retail carriers or enterprise customers),
wherein the access point corresponding to the connection information is an access point included in the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device (para [0183]: The at least one wireless device may be selectively steered to the different wireless association based, at least in part, on the steering ranking list.).
Regarding Claim 16, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Iyer further teaches
the first access point and the second access point correspond to different frequency bands.
Iyer explicitly teaches band steering a client device between different communication bands, such as steering a client from its preferred communication band to the system’s non-preferred communication band (see para [0119] of Lyer). Therefore, applying the steering and fallback mechanism across different frequency bands is directly taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 17, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein Chennichetty further teaches
a connection between the first access point and the electronic device can be established in a 6 GHz band (para [0003]: APs and STAs are capable of operating on a number of different frequency bands including, … the 6 GHz frequency band,).
Regarding Claim 18, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, further acting as:
an execution unit configured to execute at least one of printing and scanning (para [0054]: Additionally, the electronic device can be implemented as …printers, copiers (interpreted as “scanning”), ...).
Claim(s) 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chennichetty in view of Iyer, and further in view of Austin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110286437, hereinafter “Austin”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein
Iyer teaches the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request (para [0119] of Iyer: In one embodiment, because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band (interpreted as “second access point”) during a pre-determined time period T 3390 (interpreted as “a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed”), the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel… after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, …) and
However, Chennichetty and Iyer fail to teach the electronic device not being in communication with an external information device.
In analogous art, Austin teaches the electronic device not being in communication with an external information device (para [0077] of Austin: If there is no data flow, the timer is compared to a threshold S1463, and if the timer is within the threshold, the data and timer monitoring continues. If there is data flow, the data flow is monitored until it stops. If, however, there is no data flow and the timer reaches the threshold, the method checks… ).
Austin discloses an intelligent wireless connection control method that manages fallback timers and transceiver states based on the presence or absence of active data communications. Specifically, Austin teaches that a timer is evaluated against a threshold “if there is no data flow,” ensuring that connection transitions or resets are triggered only when the device is idle and not actively exchanging data (see para [0077] of Austin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the timer-based fallback mechanism of Chennichetty and Iyer by incorporating the data flow monitoring condition of Austin. The motivation to combine these references is to prevent packet loss, avoid dropping active communication sessions, and ensure a seamless user experience by restricting the autonomous connection destination change to periods when the electronic device is in an idle state.
Regarding Claim 7, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, further acting as:
Chennichetty further teaches a printing unit configured to execute printing (para [0055]: The stations STA1-STA4 may be any suitable wireless communication electronic device… the electronic device can be implemented as … printers, copiers, …),
Iyer teaches wherein the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request (para [0119] of Iyer: In one embodiment, because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band (interpreted as “second access point”) during a pre-determined time period T 3390 (interpreted as “a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed”), the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel… after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, …) and
However, Chennichetty and Iyer fail to teach the electronic device not currently executing the printing.
In analogous art, Austin teaches the electronic device not currently executing the printing (para [0077] of Austin: If there is no data flow, the timer is compared to a threshold S1463, and if the timer is within the threshold, the data and timer monitoring continues. If there is data flow, the data flow is monitored until it stops. If, however, there is no data flow and the timer reaches the threshold, the method checks… ).
Austin discloses an intelligent wireless connection control method that manages fallback timers and transceiver states based on the presence or absence of active data communications. Specifically, Austin teaches that a timer is evaluated against a threshold “if there is no data flow,” ensuring that connection transitions or resets are triggered only when the device is idle and not actively exchanging data (see para [0077] of Austin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless printer of Chennichetty, employing the timer-based fallback mechanism of Iyer, to include the idle-state data flow condition of Austin. For a networked printer, ensuring there is “no data flow” explicitly means ensuring the device is “not currently executing printing.” The motivation to combine these references is to prevent the interruption of active print jobs and avoid data corruption or incomplete printouts by restricting the autonomous network transition to periods when the printer is completely idle.
Regarding Claim 8, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, further acting as:
Chennichetty further teaches a reading unit configured to read a document (para [0055]: The stations STA1-STA4 may be any suitable wireless communication electronic device… the electronic device can be implemented as … printers, copiers, …),
Iyer teaches wherein the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request (para [0119] of Iyer: In one embodiment, because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band (interpreted as “second access point”) during a pre-determined time period T 3390 (interpreted as “a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed”), the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel… after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, …) and
However, Chennichetty and Iyer fail to teach the electronic device not currently reading the document.
In analogous art, Austin teaches the electronic device not currently reading the document (para [0077] of Austin: If there is no data flow, the timer is compared to a threshold S1463, and if the timer is within the threshold, the data and timer monitoring continues. If there is data flow, the data flow is monitored until it stops. If, however, there is no data flow and the timer reaches the threshold, the method checks… ).
Austin discloses an intelligent wireless connection control method that manages fallback timers and transceiver states based on the presence or absence of active data communications. Specifically, Austin teaches that a timer is evaluated against a threshold “if there is no data flow,” ensuring that connection transitions or resets are triggered only when the device is idle and not actively exchanging data (see para [0077] of Austin).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless copier of Chennichetty, employing the timer-based fallback mechanism of Iyer, to include the idle-state data flow condition of Austin. For a networked copier, ensuring there is “no data flow” explicitly means ensuring the device is “not currently executing reading the document.” The motivation to combine these references is to prevent the interruption of active copying jobs and avoid data corruption or incomplete scanning by restricting the autonomous network transition to periods when the copier (scanning/reading document) is completely idle.
Regarding Claim 9, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein
the connection destination of the electronic device is changed to the first access point, on a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point on a basis of reception of the first change request (para [0119] of Iyer: In one embodiment, because AP 3320 receives multiple Probe Requests 3363-3365 on the system's non-preferred communication band without receiving any request on the system's preferred communication band (interpreted as “second access point”) during a pre-determined time period T 3390 (interpreted as “a basis of the predetermined amount of time elapsing since the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point”), the system infers that client 3310 is persistent on the client's preferred communication band. This can happen, for example, when a client device that is capable of communicating on multiple communication bands has a broken radio antenna that is used to communicate on the system's preferred communication channel… after pre-determined time period T 3390 has lapsed, …) and
However, Chennichetty and Iyer fail to teach a predetermined amount of time has elapsed in a state in which a user operation on the electronic device has not been performed.
In analogous art, Austin teaches the limitation:
a predetermined amount of time has elapsed in a state in which a user operation on the electronic device has not been performed (para [0072] of Austin:… FIG. 15 describes a super-cycle test mode that is activated when a mobile device is on external power and in an idle mode (i.e. when the screen is blank), and processor is idle indicating no activity.) (para [0072] of Austin: If yes, step 1310 makes an idle-mode determination (i.e. if the screen in blank and/or if the processor is in a low-power state), and if yes, the method continues S1310 to the super-cycle test mode of FIG. 15.) (para [0077] of Austin: If there is no data flow, the timer is compared to a threshold S1463, and if the timer is within the threshold, the data and timer monitoring continues. If there is data flow, the data flow is monitored until it stops. If, however, there is no data flow and the timer reaches the threshold, the method checks… ).
Austin explicitly teaches conditioning wireless connection transitions and routines based on the device being in a user-inactive idle state. Specifically, Austin discloses activating specific network connection routines (e.g., super-cycle test mode) when the device enters an “idle mode,” which is explicitly defined as a state where “the screen is blank” and there is no processor activity (See paragraphs [0072], [0074]). A screen becoming blank explicitly dictates that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed in a state in which a user operation on the device has not been performed (i.e., a standard screen timeout).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the timer-based fallback mechanism of Chennichetty and Iyer to include the user-idle state condition of Austin. The motivation to combine these teachings is to prevent network transition interruptions or lags while the user is actively operating the device, thereby ensuring that autonomous AP transitions occur seamlessly in the background only when the device is completely idle and not being interacted with by the user.
Claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chennichetty in view of Iyer, and further in view of Pandey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210051486, hereinafter “Pandey”).
Regarding Claim 15, Chennichetty and Iyer teach The electronic device according to claim 1, Chennichetty and Iyer fail to teach wherein changing the connection destination of the electronic device on a basis of reception of the first change request is performed on a basis of a Wi-Fi Agile Multiband function.
In analogous art, Pandey discloses the wherein changing the connection destination of the electronic device on a basis of reception of the first change request is performed on a basis of a Wi-Fi Agile Multiband function (para [0019] of Pandey: Wi-Fi Agile Multiband Operation (MBO) and Wi-Fi Optimized Connectivity Experience (OCE) may be two example certifications providing features that help intelligently steer clients 120 and improve roaming between access points 115 of ESS 130. For example, MBO may help clients 120 choose a best band of RF channels at association and during roaming operations, and OCE may reduce an amount of overhead caused by network information and discovery.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the network-controlled steering system of Chennichetty to execute the connection destination changes (steering and roaming) based on the Wi-Fi Agile Multiband Operation (MBO) function as taught by Pandey. The motivation to combine these teachings is to implement standardized, industry-recognized protocols to optimize client steering, facilitate seamless roaming between access points, and ensure reliable interoperability among Wi-Fi certified devices operating within the network. Utilizing a standardized protocol designed specifically for steering to perform the steering operations of Chennichetty is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 appear to contain allowable subject matters underlined below pending on satisfactory of overcoming above 112 rejection and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims.
The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
a second reception unit configured to receive a first request requesting for information relating to one or more access points surrounding the electronic device from the first access point after the connection destination of the electronic device has changed to the second access point,
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the first access point is included in one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device,
a first control unit configured to perform control so that information relating to the first access point is transmitted as a response to the first request on a basis of the first access point being included in the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device and information relating to an access point other than the first access point, from among the one or more access points surrounding the electronic device discovered via a search executed by the electronic device, is not transmitted, and
a third reception unit configured to receive the second change request to request change of the connection destination of the electronic device from the second access point after a response to the first request is transmitted,
wherein the second change request is transmitted to the electronic device on a basis of a response to the first request.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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 W Ferris can be reached at 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights