DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “AP (231, 232, 233) in line 2. There is need to number AP in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (US 2018/0310240 A1) in view of Kwak et al. (US 2015/0156665 A).
Regarding claim 1, an electronic device (130), comprising: a communication circuit (paragraph [0020]-[0022]); a processor operably connected to the communication circuit (paragraph [0020]-[0022]); and a memory operably connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: receive, from one or more access points (APs) that have received a probe request frame transmitted by an external electronic device, information related to the probe request frame, the information including at least one signal quality (abstract; paragraph [0005];[0018]; [0029]; [0032]-[0040]; [0051]; [0054]; [0056]-[0058]; [0061]-[0063]; [0068]-[0072]; [0074]-[0076]; and so on, illustrating the reception of probe request indicating signal strength such as RSSI); select an AP from among the one or more APs to transmit a probe response frame to the external electronic device based on the at least one signal quality (paragraph [0005]; [0018]; [0038]-[0051]; [0061]-[0062]; and etc., explaining the selection of AP from plurality of APs based on the signal strength); and control the selected AP to transmit the probe response frame to the external electronic device (paragraph [0005]; [0018]; [0042]-[0051]; and so on, monitoring and/or controlling the selected AP to transmit a probe response).
Kannan does not disclose the selection is also based on a data size pending in the one or more Aps.
Kwak teaches the selection is also based on a data size pending in the one or more Aps (paragraph [0115]-[0116]; [0120]; [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the selection is also based on a data size pending in the one or more Aps as taught by Kwak into Kannan in order to reduce congestion and/or overloading.
Regarding claim 10 and 19, the claim includes features identical to subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding method and an electronic device at receiving side, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Kanna discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to select the AP from among the one or more APs that has received a signal that has a highest signal quality to transmit the probe response frame (paragraph [0034]-[0035]; [0038]; [0058]; [0061]; [0069]; and so on).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Kannan discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to control the selected AP to transmit a signal including the probe response frame and at least one signal quality measured by the one or more APs to the external electronic device (paragraph [0005]; [0018]; [0039]-[0054]; and so on).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Kannan discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to control the one or more APs to transmit data or the probe response frame to the external electronic device through a same channel (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kannan discloses wherein the memory is configured to further store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to access the AP that has not transmitted the at least one probe response frame (e.g. paragraph [0050]-[0051]; and so on).
Claims 3-5, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Kwak, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2014/0211776 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and 12, as applied above, the modified communication of Kannan discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to select AP based on a signal having the highest quality. Kannan does not disclose select the AP having a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame in a case that a data size pending in the AP which has received a signal having the highest quality, is greater than or equal to a designated size.
Jang teaches select the AP having a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame in a case that a data size pending in the AP which has received a signal having the highest quality, is greater than or equal to a designated size (paragraph [0047]; [0052]; [0068]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use select the AP having a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame in a case that a data size pending in the AP which has received a signal having the highest quality, is greater than or equal to a designated size s as taught by Jang into modified communication of Kannan in order to improve quality of service.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, as applied above, Kannan discloses the AP to transmit the probe response frame. Kannan does not disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to select the AP from among the one or more APs that has a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame.
Jang teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to select the AP from among the one or more APs that has a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame (paragraph [0047]; [0052]; [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to select the AP from among the one or more APs that has a smallest data size pending in the AP to transmit the probe response frame as taught by Jang into modified communication of Kannan in order to improve quality of service.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Kannan discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to: transmit at least one signal quality measured by the one or more APs to the selected AP (paragraph [0005]; [0018]; [0038]-[0051]; [0061]-[0062]; and etc.); and control the selected AP to transmit a probe response frame including the at least one signal quality measured by the one or more APs of the one or more APs to the external electronic device (paragraph [0005]; [0018]; [0042]-[0051]; and so on).
Kannan does not disclose the transmission signal quality and control to select APs based on at least one identification information of the one or more APs .
Jang teaches the transmission signal quality and control to select APs based on at least one identification information of the one or more APs (paragraph [0046]-[0049]; [0060]-[0063]; [0067]-[0068]; [0070]-[0073]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the transmission signal quality and control to select APs based on at least one identification information of the one or more APs as taught by Jang into modified communication of Kannan in order to improve quality of service.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Kwak and Jang, and further in view of Patil et al. (US 2023/0403545 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, as applied above, Kannan discloses wherein the at least one signal quality measured by the one or more APs. However, Kannan does not disclose the signal quality is included in a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) information field of the probe response frame.
Patil teaches the signal quality is included in a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) information field of the probe response frame (paragraph [0083]-[0084]; [0278]; [0292]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the signal quality is included in a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) information field of the probe response frame as taught by Patil into modified communication of Kannan in order to reduce link or channel failure and error, and improve quality of communication.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan in view of Kwak, and further in view of Patil et al. (US 2023/0403545 A1).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Kannan discloses transmitting probe response. However, Kannan does not disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to determine whether the at least one AP (231, 232, 233) is to transmit the probe response frame based on a status of a link between the external electronic device and the one or more APs and a status of a link between the electronic device and the one or more APs.
Patil teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to determine whether the at least one AP (231, 232, 233) is to transmit the probe response frame based on a status of a link between the external electronic device and the one or more APs and a status of a link between the electronic device and the one or more APs (e.g. paragraph [0082]-[0084]; ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to determine whether the at least one AP (231, 232, 233) is to transmit the probe response frame based on a status of a link between the external electronic device and the one or more APs and a status of a link between the electronic device and the one or more APs as taught by Patil into modified communication of Kannan in order to increase efficiency of communication and reduce dropping of data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights