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 Office Action is in response to communications filed on 8/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11 & 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining, for a station (STA), a plurality of steering metrics associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered;” and “selecting, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface,(ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface, and (iii) preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface;”. It is contradictory to claim that the STA is associated with a current interface and to select a steering mechanism that prevents association of the STA with the current interface. The STA would need to first be disassociated with the current interface before a steering mechanism could prevent the STA from associating or reassociating with the current interface. Thus, this claim is ambiguous and indefinite. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “selecting, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface, and (ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface;”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein selecting the steering mechanism comprises selecting prevention of association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface, and wherein causing execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises adding the STA to a blacklist associated with the current interface.”. Claim 1, upon which claim 6 is dependent, recites “obtaining, for a station (STA), a plurality of steering metrics associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered;”. It is contradictory to claim that the STA is associated with a current interface and to select a steering mechanism that prevents association of the STA with the current interface. The STA would need to first be disassociated with the current interface before a steering mechanism could prevent the STA from associating or reassociating with the current interface. Thus, this claim is ambiguous and indefinite. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “wherein selecting the steering mechanism comprises adding the STA to a blacklist associated with the current interface.”.
Claim 10 recites “obtaining steering information for the STA, the steering information being associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface for the STA” and “transmitting corresponding instructions to a plurality of additional CSDs executing on respective additional APs of the plurality of APs to coordinate enforcement of the selected steering mechanism, wherein the selected steering mechanism comprises at least one of maintaining the STA on the current interface, guiding the STA toward the destination interface, or preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface.”. It is contradictory to claim that the STA is associated with a current interface of an AP and to transmit instructions to additional APs to coordinating the enforcement of preventing association of the STA with the current interface. The STA would need to first be disassociated with the current interface before coordinated enforcement of preventing the STA from associating or reassociating with the current interface could be instructed. Thus, this claim is ambiguous and indefinite. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “transmitting corresponding instructions to a plurality of additional CSDs executing on respective additional APs of the plurality of APs to coordinate enforcement of the selected steering mechanism, wherein the selected steering mechanism comprises at least one of maintaining the STA on the current interface or guiding the STA toward the destination interface.”.
Claim 11 recites “obtain, for a station (STA), steering information associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered.” and “selecting, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface, (ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface, and (iii) preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface;”. It is contradictory to claim that the STA is associated with a current interface and to select a steering mechanism that prevents association of the STA with the current interface. The STA would need to first be disassociated with the current interface before a steering mechanism could prevent the STA from associating or reassociating with the current interface. Thus, this claim is ambiguous and indefinite. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “selecting, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface, and (ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface;”.
Claim 17 recites “wherein selection of the steering mechanism comprises selection of prevention of association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface, and wherein execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises adding the STA to a blacklist associated with the current interface.”. Claim 11, upon which claim 17 is dependent, recites “obtain, for a station (STA), steering information associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered;”. It is contradictory to claim that the STA is associated with a current interface and to select a steering mechanism that prevents association of the STA with the current interface. The STA would need to first be disassociated with the current interface before a steering mechanism could prevent the STA from associating or reassociating with the current interface. Thus, this claim is ambiguous and indefinite. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this claim limitation as “wherein selection of the steering mechanism comprises adding the STA to a blacklist associated with the current interface.”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 3, wherein evaluating the steering condition comprises evaluating the result of the comparing together with a cost evaluation derived from the plurality of steering metrics” which does not limit the subject matter of claim 3 because claim 3, and claim 1 upon which claim 3 is dependent, already requires that the evaluating the steering condition comprises evaluating based on the first cost and the second cost (i.e. a cost evaluation derived from the plurality of steering metrics) and further based on the result of the comparing of a signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Makati et al. (US 2018/0213412)(herein after “Makati”).
Regarding claim 1, Makati discloses a method implemented by a client steering daemon (CSD) executing on a first access point (AP) of a wireless network comprising a plurality of APs, the method comprising:
obtaining, for a station (STA), a plurality of steering metrics associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered (Figs 1 & 3 and [0009] & [0023] disclose an AP3 (i.e. a first AP), of a wireless network comprising AP1, AP2 and AP3 (i.e. a plurality of APs), and an STA B 34 associated with AP3, where AP3 performs processing of its own AP metrics (i.e. a current interface through which STA A is associated) and metrics for other APs (e.g. a destination interface for STA B 34 in association with AP2) for contemplating steering decisions. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the processing of the metrics and steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).);
determining, based on the plurality of steering metrics, a first cost associated with the current interface and a second cost associated with the destination interface (Fig 3 & [0023] discloses that a final AP cost may be based on a summation of costs based on a plurality of AP metrics such as a load cost (i.e. based on an AP load metric), airtime utilization (AU) cost (i.e. based on an AP AU metric) and a distance cost (i.e. based on an AP distance metric). Thus, a first cost for AP3 (i.e. the current interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP3, and a second cost for AP2 (i.e. a destination interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP2.);
evaluating, based on the first cost and the second cost, a steering condition for the STA (Fig 3 & [0022]-[0023] disclose that each AP (e.g. AP3) may use the final AP costs to compare the performance of one AP versus another AP (i.e. the first cost for AP3 and the second cost for AP2 may be evaluated and compared to form a steering decision between AP3 and AP2 for STA A.).);
selecting, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface, (ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface, and (iii) preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface (Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose making a steering decision (i.e. selecting), based on a steering threshold, to either steer an STA to a target AP (i.e. guide an STA to a destination interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value, or not steer the STA to a target AP (i.e. maintain the STA on the current interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is not greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value. Regarding item (iii), see rejection of claim 1 under section on Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112.); and
causing execution of the selected steering mechanism for the STA (Fig 2 & [0020]-[0021] disclose that the AP processing may result in a decision to execute the steering decision by the source AP sending a Steering Response message 40 indicating whether or not it will steer the STA to the target AP and the target AP sending a Steering Result message indicating whether or not the steering was successful.).
Regarding claims 4 & 15, Makati discloses wherein the steering condition comprises a risk associated with steering the STA from the current interface to the destination interface ([0050]-[0051] discloses that the steering decision is based on a condition where the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value (i.e. a risk associated with steering the STA from the source AP to the target AP), wherein the hysteresis is a predefined value to limit clients switching too frequently (i.e. prevents risk of ping-pong).).
Regarding claims 6 & 17, Makati discloses wherein selecting the steering mechanism comprises selecting prevention of association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface (see rejection of claim 6 under section on Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112), and wherein causing execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises adding the STA to a blacklist associated with the current interface ([0020] discloses that methods of steering clients (i.e. executing a steering mechanism for an STA) may be by disassociating the client and then Blacklisting at the source AP (i.e. the current interface).).
Regarding claim 7, Makati discloses wherein causing execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises transmitting corresponding instructions to a plurality of CSDs executing on respective APs of the wireless network to coordinate enforcement of the selected steering mechanism (Fig 2 & [0013] discloses a plurality of APs establishing a coordinated relationship to facilitate AP-based steering of clients (i.e. STAs) from one AP to another, wherein each AP includes capabilities to make decisions and request (i.e. transmit instructions to) APs and/or clients to execute AP-based steering decisions. Fig 2 & [0020] disclose the transmission of a Steering Response 40 from AP3 with instructions regarding whether or not AP3 will steer the client to AP2. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the instructions for steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).).
Regarding claim 8 & 20, Makati discloses wherein the current interface and the destination interface comprise respective wireless interfaces associated with different APs of the plurality of APs (Figs 1 & 3 and [0009] & [0023] disclose an AP3 (i.e. a first AP), of a wireless network comprising AP1, AP2 and AP3 (i.e. a plurality of APs), and an STA B 34 associated with AP3 (i.e. a current interface), where AP3 performs processing of its own AP metrics (i.e. of the current interface through which STA B 34 is associated) and metrics for other APs (e.g. a destination interface for STA B 34 in association with AP2 or a destination interface for STA B 34 in association with AP1) for contemplating steering decisions, wherein AP1, AP2 and AP3 are different APs of the plurality of APs.) or respective wireless interfaces operating in different wireless bands supported by at least one AP of the plurality of APs ([0011] discloses that each AP may facilitate wireless signaling over multiple bands.).
Regarding claim 10, Makati discloses a method of coordinating steering of a station (STA) in a wireless network comprising a plurality of access points (APs), the method comprising, by a first client steering daemon (CSD) executing on a first AP of the plurality of APs:
obtaining steering information for the STA, the steering information being associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface for the STA (Figs 1 & 3 and [0009] & [0023] disclose an AP3 (i.e. a first AP), of a wireless network comprising AP1, AP2 and AP3 (i.e. a plurality of APs), and an STA B 34 associated with AP3, where AP3 performs processing of its own AP metrics (i.e. steering information for the STA for a current interface through which STA B 34 is associated) and metrics for other APs (e.g. steering information for the STA for a destination interface for STA B 34 in association with AP2) for contemplating steering decisions of the STA. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the processing of the metrics and steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a first client steering daemon.).);
determining, based on a metric-derived evaluation of the steering information, a selected steering mechanism for the STA (Fig 3 & [0023] discloses that evaluation of steering information may be in the form of a final AP cost that may be based on a summation of costs based on a plurality of AP metrics such as a load cost (i.e. based on an AP load metric), airtime utilization (AU) cost (i.e. based on an AP AU metric) and a distance cost (i.e. based on an AP distance metric). Thus, a first cost for AP3 (i.e. the current interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP3, and a second cost for AP2 (i.e. a destination interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP2. Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose making a steering decision (i.e. selecting a steering mechanism), based on a steering threshold, to either steer the STA to a target AP if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value, or not steer the STA to a target AP if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is not greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value.); and
transmitting corresponding instructions to a plurality of additional CSDs executing on respective additional APs of the plurality of APs to coordinate enforcement of the selected steering mechanism (Fig 2 & [0013] discloses a plurality of APs establishing a coordinated relationship to facilitate AP-based steering of clients (i.e. STAs) from one AP to another, wherein each AP includes capabilities to make decisions and request (i.e. transmit instructions to) APs and/or clients to execute AP-based steering decisions, including ESS coordination instructions transmitted by AP3. Fig 2 & [0020] disclose the transmission of a Steering Response 40 from AP3 with instructions regarding whether or not AP3 will steer the client to AP2. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the instructions for steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).),
wherein the selected steering mechanism comprises at least one of maintaining the STA on the current interface, guiding the STA toward the destination interface, or preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface (Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose that the steering decision (i.e. the selected steering mechanism) is based on a steering threshold, to either steer an STA to a target AP (i.e. guide an STA to a destination interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value, or not steer the STA to a target AP (i.e. maintain the STA on the current interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is not greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value. Regarding item (iii), see rejection of claim 10 under section on Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112.).
Regarding claim 11, Makati discloses an access-point apparatus configured for operation as a first access point (AP) in a wireless network comprising a plurality of APs, the apparatus comprising:
one or more wireless interfaces (Fig 1 & [0010]-[0011] disclose Wi-Fi interfaces between APs and clients for data and information messaging.);
one or more processors ([0013] discloses that each AP may include a processor.); and
a memory storing instructions corresponding to a client steering daemon (CSD) (Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the processing of metrics and steering of an STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.),
wherein execution of the instructions by the one or more processors causes the apparatus to:
obtain, for a station (STA), steering information associated with a current interface through which the STA is associated and a destination interface to which the STA is eligible to be steered (Figs 1 & 3 and [0009] & [0023] disclose an AP3 (i.e. a first AP), of a wireless network comprising AP1, AP2 and AP3 (i.e. a plurality of APs), and an STA B 34 associated with AP3, where AP3 performs processing of its own AP metrics (i.e. steering information for STA B 34 for a current interface through which STA B 34 is associated) and metrics for other APs (e.g. steering information for the STA B 34 for a destination interface for STA B 34 in association with AP2) for contemplating steering decisions of the STA.);
determine, based on a metric-derived evaluation of the steering information, a steering condition for the STA (Fig 3 & [0023] discloses that evaluation of steering information may be in the form of a final AP cost that may be based on a summation of costs based on a plurality of AP metrics such as a load cost (i.e. based on an AP load metric), airtime utilization (AU) cost (i.e. based on an AP AU metric) and a distance cost (i.e. based on an AP distance metric). Thus, a first cost for AP3 (i.e. the current interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP3, and a second cost for AP2 (i.e. a destination interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP2. Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose making a steering decision (i.e. selecting a steering mechanism), based on a steering threshold, to either steer the STA to a target AP if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value, or not steer the STA to a target AP if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is not greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value.);
select, based on the steering condition, a steering mechanism from among: (i) maintaining the STA on the current interface, (ii) guiding the STA to the destination interface, and (iii) preventing association or reassociation of the STA with the current interface (Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose that the steering decision (i.e. the selected steering mechanism) is based on a steering threshold, to either steer an STA to a target AP (i.e. guide an STA to a destination interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value, or not steer the STA to a target AP (i.e. maintain the STA on the current interface) if the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is not greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value. Regarding item (iii), see rejection of claim 10 under section on Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112.); and
coordinate execution of the selected steering mechanism with at least one additional CSD executing on at least one additional AP of the plurality of APs by transmitting an instruction for enforcement of the selected steering mechanism (Fig 2 & [0013] discloses a plurality of APs establishing a coordinated relationship to facilitate AP-based steering of clients (i.e. STAs) from one AP to another, wherein each AP includes capabilities to make decisions and request (i.e. transmit instructions to) APs and/or clients to execute AP-based steering decisions. Fig 2 & [0020] disclose the transmission of a Steering Response 40 from AP3 with instructions regarding whether or not AP3 will steer the client to AP2. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the instructions for steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).).
Regarding claim 18, Makati discloses wherein execution of the instructions causes the apparatus to transmit corresponding instructions for enforcement of the selected steering mechanism to a plurality of CSDs executing on respective APs of the wireless network (Fig 2 & [0013] discloses a plurality of APs establishing a coordinated relationship to facilitate AP-based steering of clients (i.e. STAs) from one AP to another, wherein each AP includes capabilities to make decisions and request (i.e. transmit instructions to) APs and/or clients to execute AP-based steering decisions. Fig 2 & [0020] disclose the transmission of a Steering Response 40 from AP3 with instructions regarding whether or not AP3 will steer the client to AP2. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the instructions for steering of the STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makati et al. (US 2018/0213412)(herein after “Makati”), as applied to claims 1 & 11, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 2004/021717)(herein after “Jones”).
Regarding claim 2, Makati discloses the method of claim 1.
Makati fails to disclose but Jones teaches wherein determining the first cost and the second cost comprises calculating a cost ratio based on the plurality of steering metrics (Claim 25 discloses a relative-cost-of-service metric (i.e. a cost ratio) may be determined by comparing a first cost-of-service metric for accessing a first system with a second-cost-of-service metric for accessing a second system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai such that the determining the first cost and the second cost comprises calculating a cost ratio based on the plurality of steering metrics, as taught by Jones.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP on relative final costs of association of an STA to the source AP and a target AP, rather than a difference in final costs of association of the STA to the source AP and the target AP, so that the magnitude of the final costs do not unfairly penalize or favor a steering decision when comparing to a steering decision threshold.
Regarding claim 13, Makati discloses the access-point apparatus of claim 11.
Makati discloses wherein the metric-derived evaluation comprises determining a first cost associated with the current interface and a second cost associated with the destination interface based on a plurality of steering metrics (Fig 3 & [0023] discloses that evaluation of steering information may be in the form of a final AP cost that may be based on a summation of costs based on a plurality of AP metrics (i.e. a metric derived evaluation) such as a load cost (i.e. based on an AP load metric), airtime utilization (AU) cost (i.e. based on an AP AU metric) and a distance cost (i.e. based on an AP distance metric). Thus, a first cost for AP3 (i.e. the current interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP3, and a second cost for AP2 (i.e. a destination interface) would be determined by AP3 based on a summation of costs associated with AP metrics for AP2.).
Makati fails to disclose but Jones teaches including calculating a cost ratio based on the plurality of steering metrics (Claim 25 discloses a relative-cost-of-service metric (i.e. a cost ratio) may be determined by comparing a first cost-of-service metric for accessing a first system with a second-cost-of-service metric for accessing a second system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai to include calculating a cost ratio based on the plurality of steering metrics, as taught by Jones.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP on relative final costs of association of an STA to the source AP and a target AP, rather than a difference in final costs of association of the STA to the source AP and the target AP, so that the magnitude of the final costs do not unfairly penalize or favor a steering decision when comparing to a steering decision threshold.
Claims 3, 9, 12, 14 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makati et al. (US 2018/0213412)(herein after “Makati”), as applied to claims 1 & 11, and further in view of Ponnuswamy et al. (US 2017/0332292)(herein after “Ponnuswamy”).
Regarding claim 3, Makati discloses the method of claim 1.
Makati fails to disclose but Ponnuswamy teaches further comprising comparing signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value, wherein evaluating the steering condition is further based on a result of the comparing ([0105] discloses basing a steering decision on comparing a link quality metric such as RSSI to a threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai to further comprise comparing signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value, wherein evaluating the steering condition is further based on a result of the comparing, as taught by Ponnuswamy.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP for steering an STA from the source AP to a target AP by comparing RSSI of the STA, as measured from a target AP, to a threshold in order to insure that the STA is receiving adequate signal strength from the target AP when deciding whether to steer the STA to the target AP.
Regarding claim 9, Makati in view of Ponnuswamy disclose the method of claim 3.
Makati discloses wherein evaluating the steering condition comprises a cost evaluation derived from the plurality of steering metrics.
Makati fails to disclose but Ponnuswamy teaches wherein evaluating the steering condition comprises evaluating the result of the comparing ([0105] discloses basing a steering decision on comparing a link quality metric such as RSSI to a threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai such that the evaluation also comprises the results of the comparing of the signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value, as taught by Ponnuswamy.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP for steering an STA from the source AP to a target AP by comparing RSSI of the STA, as measured from a target AP, to a threshold in order to insure that the STA is receiving adequate signal strength from the target AP when deciding whether to steer the STA to the target AP.
Regarding claim 12, Makati discloses the access-point apparatus of claim 11.
Makati discloses a plurality of APs and respective CSDs execute on respective APs of the plurality of APs (Figs 1 & 3 and [0009] & [0023] disclose AP1, AP2 and AP3 (i.e. a plurality of APs). Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the processing of metrics and steering of an STA may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).).
Makati fails to disclose but Ponnuswamy teaches wherein the plurality of APs are configured to form a wireless mesh network ([0003]-[0004] disclose a plurality of nodes, that may be network devices such as APs, in a full mesh topology where each node is associated directly to each other node.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai wherein the plurality of APs are configured to form a wireless mesh network, as taught by Ponnuswamy.
The motivation to do so would have been to configure the plurality of APs in a full mesh topology to reduce delays in steering an STA by sending STA steering instructions directly between APs rather than having to route instructions through relay APs for instructions sent between APs that would not have direct connections in a non-Mesh topology.
Regarding claim 14, Makati discloses the access-point apparatus of claim 11.
Makati fails to disclose but Ponnuswamy teaches wherein execution of the instructions further causes the apparatus to compare signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value, and wherein determination of the steering condition is further based on a result of the comparison ([0105] discloses basing a steering decision on comparing a link quality metric such as RSSI to a threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai to such that execution of the instructions further causes the apparatus to compare signal-strength information associated with the STA against a predetermined value, and wherein determination of the steering condition is further based on a result of the comparison, as taught by Ponnuswamy.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP for steering an STA from the source AP to a target AP by comparing RSSI of the STA, as measured from a target AP, to a threshold in order to insure that the STA is receiving adequate signal strength from the target AP when deciding whether to steer the STA to the target AP.
Regarding claim 19, Makati discloses the access-point apparatus of claim 11.
Makati discloses wherein the metric-derived evaluation is based on a cost evaluation derived from the plurality of steering metrics maintained by the CSD (Fig 3 & [0022]-[0023] disclose that each AP (e.g. AP3) may use the final AP costs (i.e. metric-derived costs) to compare (i.e. evaluate) the performance of one AP versus another AP. Fig 2 & [0013] disclose that each AP may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of non-transitory instructions stored thereon and executable with a processor to facilitate one or more of the operations of the disclosed invention (i.e. the maintaining of the steering metrics may be implemented by the processor executing instructions of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which may be interpreted as a client steering daemon.).).
Makati fails to disclose but Ponnuswamy teaches wherein the metric-derived evaluation is based on both a comparison of signal-strength information associated with the STA and a cost evaluation derived from a plurality of steering metrics maintained by the CSD ([0105] discloses basing a steering decision on comparing a link quality metric such as RSSI to a threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai such that the metric-derived evaluation is based on both a comparison of signal-strength information associated with the STA and a cost evaluation derived from a plurality of steering metrics maintained by the CSD, as taught by Ponnuswamy.
The motivation to do so would have been to base steering decisions made by a source AP for steering an STA from the source AP to a target AP by comparing RSSI of the STA, as measured from a target AP, to a threshold in order to insure that the STA is receiving adequate signal strength from the target AP when deciding whether to steer the STA to the target AP.
Claims 5 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makati et al. (US 2018/0213412)(herein after “Makati”), as applied to claims 1 & 11, and further in view of Shukla et al. (US 2018/0241450)(herein after “Shukla”).
Regarding claim 5, Makati discloses the method of claim 1.
Makati discloses wherein selecting the steering mechanism comprises selecting guidance of the STA to the destination interface (Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose making a steering decision (i.e. selecting), based on a steering threshold, to steer an STA to a target AP (i.e. guide an STA to a destination interface) when the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value.).
Makati fails to disclose but Shukla teaches wherein causing execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises transmitting a steering message to the STA (Fig 2A & [0034] discloses a first AP 105-a (i.e. a source AP) transmitting a steering message to STA 115 to execute steering of STA 115 to AP 105-b (i.e. a target AP).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai to cause execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises transmitting a steering message to the STA, as taught by Shukla.
The motivation to do so would have been to send a message to an STA indicating that the STA is to be steered from a source AP to a target AP, when the source AP determines that a steering decision indicates that the STA will receive better performance at the target AP, in order to improve user experience at the STA.
Regarding claim 16, Makati discloses the access-point apparatus of claim 11,
Makati discloses wherein selection of the steering mechanism comprises selection of guidance of the STA to the destination interface (Fig 3 & [0049]-[0051] disclose making a steering decision (i.e. selecting), based on a steering threshold, to steer an STA to a target AP (i.e. guide an STA to a destination interface) when the final client cost of a source BSS for a source AP minus a final client cost of a target BSS for a target AP is greater than the maximum of a steering decision threshold and a hysteresis value.).
Makati fails to disclose but Shukla teaches wherein execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises transmission of a steering message to the STA (Fig 2A & [0034] discloses a first AP 105-a (i.e. a source AP) transmitting a steering message to STA 115 to execute steering of STA 115 to AP 105-b (i.e. a target AP).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Makai such that the execution of the selected steering mechanism comprises transmission of a steering message to the STA, as taught by Shukla.
The motivation to do so would have been to send a message to an STA indicating that the STA is to be steered from a source AP to a target AP, when the source AP determines that a steering decision indicates that the STA will receive better performance at the target AP, in order to improve user experience at the STA.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carlton et al. (US 2011/0200008) discloses Media Independent Handover for Mobility.
Hu et al. (CN 103686890) discloses Realizing Terminal Roaming in Wireless Local Area Network Switching Method and System.
Ho et al. (US 2017/0347292) discloses a Base Station Central Control Server and Base Station Outage Compensation Method Thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
