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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant repeated the same and/or similar arguments that the prior art reference Stafford (U.S. Pub. No. 20150365833) fails to show certain features of Applicant’s invention (i.e. “obtaining a cellular gateway that is configured to provide cellular connectivity to the Internet for an associated Wi-Fi network; measuring, based on information from the cellular gateway, a plurality of locations in a building for the Wi-Fi network; and receiving an indication based on the measuring, on a mobile device, for locating the cellular gateway in the building related to access to the Wi-Fi network”). (Emphasis Added).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments because of the following reasons:
First, the Applicant’s claimed invention is broad, vague, and/or unclear. For example, the independent claims recited “obtaining a cellular gateway” (i.e. a device or a hardware). Thus, it’s unclear how “a device or a hardware” is obtained in a method claim 1. Furthermore, in the Apparatus claim 16, the claim recited “responsive to obtaining a cellular gateway”, it’s vague and/or unclear how an apparatus obtains another device.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the at least independent claims recited “intended purpose or use” limitations in the body of the claim without any further detailed limitations e.g. “for an associated Wi-Fi network” or “for the Wi-Fi network”.
The Applicant is reminded that an intended use recitation that appears in the body of a claimed apparatus generally does not impart a patentable distinction if it merely states an intention. Such intended use limitations would not distinguish a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP 2111.04.
Also, the at least independent claims recited at least in part “and receiving an indication based on the measuring, on a mobile device, for locating the cellular gateway in the building related to access to the Wi-Fi network” and/or “receiving an indication based on the measuring for locating the cellular gateway in the building related to the apparatus to connected to the Wi-Fi network”.
As previously discussed, the at least claimed limitation is broad and/or unclear, because the term “related to” without any further detail does not clearly define the scope of the Applicant invention. It’s also unclear how cellular gateway in the building…relate to access to the Wi-Fi network. The independent claims does not provide any further information to clearly define or describe the “relationship” and/or any “communication connection” between “the cellular gateway” and “the Wi-Fi network” as claimed.
Thus, for examination purpose of the unclear and/or broadly written claims, the Examiner has given the at least claimed limitations its’ broadest reasonable interpretation. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111.
Secondly, with regards to the at least claimed limitations in question, the Applicant argued that Stafford does not teach “obtaining a cellular gateway that is configured to provide cellular connectivity to the Internet for an associated Wi-Fi network”.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and kindly directs the Applicant to Stafford e.g. fig. 1, fig. 2, and pp0074, which discussed the methods and apparatus for determining a desired/optimal location for an access point (i.e. with cellular and/or internet connectivity) in a user premises (also, see pp0058). Stafford further discussed the concept of the access point device 202 issues a beacon signal. The beacon signal “pings” the client devices 210 making the client devices 210 visible to the access point device 202. Furthermore, as shown in e.g. fig. 1, client devices and/or access point are “associated” or “related” to the Wi-Fi network (also see, pp0036).
Thirdly, with regards to the at least claimed limitations in question, the Applicant argued that Stafford does not teach “measuring, based on information from the cellular gateway, a plurality of locations in a building for the Wi-Fi network”.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and kindly direct the Applicant to reference Stafford: In fig. 2, fig. 3, ¶ [0072], ¶ [0074], ¶ [0082], and ¶ [0086], discussed the concept that the access point 202 pings and issues beacon signal to the client devices 210, and the user (i.e. client device 210 acting as the ad-hoc access point) generates a plurality of location profiles for each of the client devices 210 within the premises (see, pp. [0072] and [0075]). The client device 210 acting as the access point knows when it has finished “pinging” the other client devices 210 within the premises 200 based on the information received from the access point device 202 during the installation mode (see pp. [0082]).
As discussed above, the process of locating or placing a cellular gateway is based on the ping or information received from the cellular gateway (i.e. access point 202 pings and issues beacon signal to the client devices 210). Therefore, Stafford discussed that during installation mode, one or more client device 210 (e.g. acting access point) (i.e. claimed “apparatus”), pings other client devices 210 to collect information and generate a plurality of location profile within the premises, based on the information (e.g. beacon signal) received from the access point 202 (i.e. claimed “measuring, based on information from the cellular gateway, a plurality of locations in a building for the Wi-Fi network”).
Lastly, with regards to the at least claimed limitations in question, the Applicant argued that Stafford does not teach “receiving an indication based on the measuring, on a mobile device, for locating the cellular gateway in the building related to access to the Wi-Fi network”.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and kindly directed to Stafford e.g. fig. 1, fig. 2, which described the invention throughout the specification that is “related” to access Wi-Fi network and/or other wireless network as discussed in the prior art reference. Therefore, the claim does not uniquely and particularly define the term “related to access to the Wi-Fi network” so as to distinguish from the applied prior art. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. The at least limitation is broadly claimed, therefore, is fairly characterized as shown in fig. 1 and pp0036, all the components and/or devices in the communication network are “related”, “associated”, and/or “connected” wireless/wired to the network.
Furthermore, Stafford discussed in fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0103, pp0105, the concept of a particular one of the locations is identified per step 314 as the optimal location (i.e., the location within the premises for which the “best” communication to all of the client devices 210 is determined), such information can be communicated to the user graphically, the user may then install the access point device 202 at the location of the client device 210 which was determined to be the optimal location (or a location proximate to the optimal location.
The Applicant’s arguments that “Stafford does not contemplate providing guidance or recommendations to a user regarding where to physically place or install a cellular gateway to optimize Wi-Fi network access” is invalid because the Applicant’s arguments are different from the at least claimed limitations in question.
In conclusion, the Applicant’s claimed invention is broad and/or vague, thus cannot be clearly distinguished from the applied prior arts on record. Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, and 14-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stafford et al. (US Publication No. 20150365833).
As to claims 1 and 16, Stafford teaches a method and an apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 2, pp0014, installing a wireless access point within a user premises, and pp0064, client devices 210 may communicate using any well-known communications protocol, whether wired or wireless (e.g., LAN/WAN, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.)), the apparatus comprising: one or more processors and memory comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: responsive to obtaining a cellular gateway that is configured to provide cellular connectivity to the Internet for an associated Wi-Fi network (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, andpp0074, the access point device 202 issues a beacon signal. The beacon signal “pings” the client devices 210 making the client devices 210 visible to the access point device 202, and fig. 4), measuring, based on information from the cellular gateway, a plurality of locations in a building for the Wi-Fi network (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0072, the user generates a plurality of location profiles for each of the client devices 210 within the premises, pp0086, user may optionally move one or more of the client devices 210 to one or more new locations within the premises (step 304), and each of the client devices 210 acts as the ad hoc access point and collects connectivity data from the other client devices 210 within the premises at the new location(s), pp0082, and fig. 4); and receiving an indication based on the measuring for locating the cellular gateway in the building related to the apparatus to connected to the Wi-Fi network (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0103, a particular one of the locations is identified per step 314 as the optimal location (i.e., the location within the premises for which the “best” communication to all of the client devices 210 is determined), such information can be communicated to the user graphically, pp0105, user may then install the access point device 202 at the location of the client device 210 which was determined to be the optimal location (or a location proximate to the optimal location, and pp0036)).
As to claims 2 and 17, Stafford teaches wherein the mobile device executes at least one of a mobile application and a browser session and communicates with the cellular gateway via any of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 6, #610, and pp0121, A Wi-Fi premises interface 604 or other air interface (e.g., Bluetooth, UWB, etc.) may be utilized for wirelessly communicating the link statistics. It is appreciated, however, that the premises interface 604 and/or communication with the access point device 202 may occur via any number of wired and/or wireless communications).
As to claims 3 and 18, Stafford teaches wherein the measuring is performed by the mobile device configured as a sensor, such that a user physically moves the mobile device to the plurality of locations (fig. 1, pp0079, “moving” mode can also be triggered by movement of the client device 210 itself during the determination of the optimal access point location; e.g., using the extant accelerometer(s) of the client device 210, Doppler effect, GPS data, or other mechanism for detecting movement of the client devices 210).
As to claims 8 and 19, Stafford teaches wherein the measuring is performed by an installation sensor device provided with the cellular gateway (fig. 1, pp0092, since the AP is at this point merely gathering data obtained by the client devices 210 to utilize in its determination of the optimal AP placement location).
As to claims 9 and 20, Stafford teaches wherein the measuring is performed by the cellular gateway with one of a portable power bank and a laptop connected thereto (fig. 1, pp0092, since the AP is at this point merely gathering data obtained by the client devices 210 to utilize in its determination of the optimal AP placement location, and pp0077).
As to claim 10, Stafford teaches wherein the cellular gateway further includes wired connectivity to the Internet and the plurality of locations include ones in the building supporting the wired connectivity (fig. 1, fig. 2a, fig. 2b, and fig. 4).
As to claim 11, Stafford teaches wherein the Wi-Fi network includes a plurality of access points with the cellular gateway connected to one access point and a wired gateway connected to a different access point (fig. 1, fig. 2a, and fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Stafford teaches wherein the mobile device executes one of a mobile application and a browser session, and wherein the indication is provided via the one of the mobile application and the browser session (fig. 1, fig. 3, fig. 6, and pp0103, such information can be communicated to the user graphically (e.g., via an on-screen map or listing of locations, with the placement location being highlighted or otherwise denoted)).
As to claim 15, Stafford teaches wherein the indication is at least one of bars, a number, and/or a phrase (fig. 1, fig. 3, fig. 6, and pp0103, such information can be communicated to the user graphically (e.g., via an on-screen map or listing of locations, with the placement location being highlighted or otherwise denoted)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford et al. (US Publication No. 20150365833) in view of Ngai (US Publication No. 20170094541).
As to claim 5, Stafford teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the cellular connectivity of the cellular gateway and the mobile device are with a same network provider.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ngai teaches wherein the cellular connectivity of the cellular gateway and the mobile device are with a same network provider (fig. 1, pp0019, small cell networks are operated by the same service providers of macro networks, and pp0028). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stafford with the teachings of Ngai to achieve the goal of efficiently providing strategic placement of small cell networks which frees cellular base station edge network bandwidth in a communication network (Ngai, pp0003).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford et al. (US Publication No. 20150365833) in view of Hicks, III et al. (US Publication No. 20040248593).
As to claim 6, Stafford teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the cellular connectivity of the cellular gateway and the mobile device are with a different network provider, with the mobile device forced into a roaming mode.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hicks III teaches wherein the cellular connectivity of the cellular gateway and the mobile device are with a different network provider, with the mobile device forced into a roaming mode (fig. 2, pp0076, user will be able to use the dual mode telephone 106 to "roam" within a service provider's network and to "roam" into other service providers' wireless access and wired access networks. That is, a user may operated the dual mode telephone 106 via any wireless access point of her service provider or via wireless access points of other service providers). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stafford with the teachings of Hicks, III to achieve the goal of efficiently and adequately providing mobile wireless telephone service coverage when users enter certain geographical areas or when they enter buildings, including homes and public buildings (Hicks, III, pp0004).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford et al. (US Publication No. 20150365833) in view of Park et al. (US Publication No. 20180249341).
As to claim 12, Stafford teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Stafford further teaches further comprising: providing results of the measuring to a [storage] (fig. 1, fig. 2, pp0067, the client device 210 acting as the access point transmits the collected connectivity data to the storage device 204 for subsequent analysis by, e.g., an application running on the user's PC, a gateway (if present), or other device in communication with the storage device 204). However, fails to explicitly teach that the storage is a cloud service.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Park teaches that the storage is a cloud service (fig. 4 and pp0095, the electronic device 410 may install and execute an application for determining an optimal location of the second access point 420. For example, the electronic device 410 may receive the application from a server 450, and may provide a graphic user interface including information on whether deployment of the second access point 420 is suitable at several locations using the application). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stafford with the teachings of Park to achieve the goal of efficiently and easily determining a suitable location of an access point (AP) using the electronic device and installing the access point in a communication system (Park, pp0006).
As to claim 13, Stafford teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Stafford further teaches further comprising: utilizing the results by the [storage] for any of analytics, development of heuristics, and providing advice or guidance to users (fig. 1, fig. 2, pp0067, the client device 210 acting as the access point transmits the collected connectivity data to the storage device 204 for subsequent analysis by, e.g., an application running on the user's PC, a gateway (if present), or other device in communication with the storage device 204). However, fails to explicitly teach that the storage is a cloud service.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Park teaches that the storage is a cloud service (fig. 4 and pp0095, the electronic device 410 may install and execute an application for determining an optimal location of the second access point 420. For example, the electronic device 410 may receive the application from a server 450, and may provide a graphic user interface including information on whether deployment of the second access point 420 is suitable at several locations using the application). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stafford with the teachings of Park to achieve the goal of efficiently and easily determining a suitable location of an access point (AP) using the electronic device and installing the access point in a communication system (Park, pp0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645