DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 29 October 2025. Claims 1-7, 10-19, and 21-27 are pending in this application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) in view of Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133) and Kowal et al. (US 2018/0242169).
For Claim 1, Yue teaches a method for reducing power consumption by a radio device, the device including a plurality of radios operating in different radio frequency bands (see paragraphs 37, 38, 44), the method comprising:
for each radio in the plurality of radios (see paragraph 11):
making measurements of one or more radio usage parameters pertaining to the radio and/or one or more other radios in the plurality of radios (see paragraphs 12-14);
based on at least a portion of the measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters, adjusting one or more operating parameters of the radio from first respective operating states to second respective operating states, wherein the first respective operating states correspond to a full-function operating mode and wherein the second respective operating states correspond to a reduced functionality mode (see paragraphs 13-14, 47);
making additional measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters pertaining to the radio and/or the one or more other radios (see paragraph 47: ongoing process); and
based on at least a portion of the additional measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters, adjusting the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the second respective operating states to third respective operating states corresponding to an increased functionality mode (see paragraphs 47-49).
Yue as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ramasamy teaches the one or more radio usage parameters including a number of clients associated with the AP via the radio and a channel utilization of the radio (see paragraphs 14, 49: measures of channel utilization, number of stations coupled to AP, these measurements used for adjusting operating parameters).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the usage parameters as measured in Ramasamy when modifying operating states as in Yue. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known measures of availability when determining how to adjust the availability of the AP.
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Kowal teaches applying such a method to plural transmit/receive chains of an access point (see paragraph 19).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor the metrics of the plural transmit/receive chains of an access point as in Kowal when monitoring usage parameters of multiple radios in a device as in Yue. The motivation would be to conserve energy at all points in the network.
For Claim 2, Yue further teaches the method, wherein the increased functionality mode is the full-function operating mode (see paragraphs 47-49: “on”).
For Claim 6, Yue as modified by Kowal above teaches the method, wherein the AP operating in the reduced functionality mode provides less functionality and/or capacity than in the full- function operating mode (see paragraphs 49: adjusting transmission rate when some tx/rx chains are off).
For Claim 10, Yue teaches a network device comprising:
a plurality of radios operating in different radio frequency (RF) bands (see paragraphs 37, 38, 44);
one or more computer processors (see paragraphs 40, 41); and
a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to, for each radio in the plurality of radios (see paragraphs 40-41):
make measurements of one or more radio usage parameters pertaining to the radio and/or one or more other radios in the plurality of radios (see paragraphs 12-14); and
in response to a presence of a set of conditions including one or more first conditions that are determined based on at least a portion of the measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters, adjust one or more operating parameters of the radio from first respective operating states to second respective operating states, wherein the first respective operating states correspond to a first operating mode of the AP device and wherein the second respective operating states correspond to a second operating mode of the AP device (see paragraphs 47-49).
Yue as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ramasamy teaches the one or more radio usage parameters including a number of clients associated with the AP via the radio and a channel utilization of the radio (see paragraphs 14, 49: measures of channel utilization, number of stations coupled to AP, these measurements used for adjusting operating parameters).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the usage parameters as measured in Ramasamy when modifying operating states as in Yue. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known measures of availability when determining how to adjust the availability of the AP.
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Kowal teaches applying such a method to plural transmit/receive chains of an access point (see paragraph 19).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor the metrics of the plural transmit/receive chains of an access point as in Kowal when monitoring usage parameters of multiple radios in a device as in Yue. The motivation would be to conserve energy at all points in the network.
For Claim 14, Yue as modified by Kowal above further teaches the AP device, wherein the first operating mode is a full-function operating mode and the second operating mode is an energy- saving operating mode that provides fewer functions and/or less capacity than the full-function operating mode (see paragraph 49).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) in view of Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133).
For Claim 15, Yue teaches a method in a network device including a plurality of radios operating in different radio frequency (RF) bands (see paragraphs 37, 38, 44), the method comprising, for each radio in the plurality of radios (see paragraph 11):
making measurements of one or more radio usage parameters pertaining to the radio and/or one or more other radios in the plurality of radios (see paragraphs 12-14);
in response to a presence of a set of conditions including one or more first conditions that are determined based on at least a portion of the measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters, adjusting one or more operating parameters of the radio from first respective operating states to second respective operating states, wherein the first respective operating states correspond to a full-function operating mode of the network device and wherein the second respective operating states correspond to an energy saving (ES) operating mode of the network device (see paragraphs 13, 14, 47); and
adjusting the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the second respective operating states back to the first respective operating states when at least a portion of the set of conditions is no longer present (see paragraph 47-49).
Yue as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ramasamy teaches the one or more radio usage parameters including a number of clients associated with the AP via the radio and a channel utilization of the radio (see paragraphs 14, 49: measures of channel utilization, number of stations coupled to AP, these measurements used for adjusting operating parameters).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the usage parameters as measured in Ramasamy when modifying operating states as in Yue. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known measures of availability when determining how to adjust the availability of the AP.
For Claim 19, Yue further teaches the method, wherein the ES operating mode provides fewer functions and/or less capacity than the full-function operating mode (see paragraph 49).
Claim(s) 3-5, 12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660), Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133), and/or Kowal et al. (US 2018/0242169) as applied to claims 1, 10, and/or 15 above, and further in view of Fujishiro (US 2016/0150470).
For Claim 3, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor Fujishiro teaches the method, wherein the adjusting of the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the first respective operating states to the second respective operating states is performed upon passage of a period of time after occurrence of one or more conditions that are determined based on the measurements (see paragraphs 73, 76).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to insert a delay before adjusting operating states as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in the event of transient changes to conditions.
For Claim 4, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Fujishiro teaches the method, wherein the adjusting of the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the second respective operating states to the third respective operating states is performed upon passage of a period of time after the one or more conditions are no longer present (see paragraph 103).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to insert a delay before adjusting operating states as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in the event of transient changes to conditions.
For Claim 5, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Fujishiro teaches the method, wherein the adjusting of the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the first respective operating states to the second respective operating states is only allowed during one or more predefined times (see paragraphs 92, 65-66).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ time limitations as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in periods of time where such changes would be detrimental to network performance.
For Claim 12, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Fujishiro teaches the AP device, wherein the one or more operating parameters of the radio are adjusted subsequent to passage of a period of time after occurrence of the set of conditions (see paragraphs 73, 76).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to insert a delay before adjusting operating states as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in the event of transient changes to conditions.
For Claim 17, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Fujishiro teaches the method, wherein the one or more operating parameters of the radio are adjusted from the first respective operating states to the second respective operating states subsequent to passage of a period of time after determining the presence of the set of conditions (see paragraphs 73, 76).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to insert a delay before adjusting operating states as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in the event of transient changes to conditions.
For Claim 18, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Fujishiro teaches the method, wherein the one or more operating parameters of the radio are adjusted from the second respective operating states back to the first respective operating states subsequent to passage of a period of time after the portion of the set of conditions is no longer present (see paragraph 103).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to insert a delay before adjusting operating states as in Fujishiro when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid changing operating states in the event of transient changes to conditions.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660), Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133), and Kowal et al. (US 2018/0242169) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ruuska (US 6584330).
For Claim 7, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Ruuska teaches the method, wherein making measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters pertaining to the radio and/or the other radios includes obtaining n measurements of a first radio usage parameter and computing a first value of the first radio usage parameter based on the n measurements of the first radio usage parameter, and wherein the adjusting of the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the first respective operating states to the second respective operating states is based at least on the first value (see column 6 lines 5-21 and 22-42: historical data, values per unit time indicate multiple measurements).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use multiple measurements as in Ruuska when implementing the method of Yue. The motivation would be to avoid making decisions based on outlying values.
For Claim 13, Yue as modified by Kowal above further teaches the AP device, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to adjust the one or more operating parameters of the radio from the second respective operating states back to the first respective operating states (see paragraphs 47-49: ongoing process).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Ruuska teaches switching modes in incremental steps (see column 11 lines 5-15: incremental shutdown).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make incremental changes as in Ruuska when adjusting the operating mode as in Fujishiro. The motivation would be to avoid sudden changes to user services.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660), Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133), and/or Kowal et al. (US 2018/0242169) as applied to claims 10 and/or 15 above, and further in view of Sampathkumar (US 2010/0284316).
For Claim 11, Yue as modified by Kowal above further teaches the AP device, wherein the set of conditions further include one or more second conditions (see paragraphs 12, 47).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Sampathkumar teaches conditions that are determined based on one or more user-defined periods of time (see abstract, paragraph 49).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to allow for user to configure the AP device so as to conserve resources over specific intervals. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of reducing power consumption.
For Claim 16, Yue further teaches method, wherein the set of conditions further include one or more second conditions (see paragraphs 12, 47).
Yue as applied above is not explicit as to, but Sampathkumar teaches conditions that are determined based on one or more user-defined periods of time (see abstract, paragraph 49).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to allow for user to configure the AP device so as to conserve resources over specific intervals. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of reducing power consumption.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) and Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2017/0237480).
For Claim 21, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Xu teaches the method wherein the one or more radio usage parameters further include a number of neighbor APs operating on a same frequency band as the radio (see abstract, paragraph 9).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed for the AP to consider the number of neighbor APs on the same channel as in Xu when implementing the method of Yue and Ramasamy. The motivation would be to avoid disrupting communications at neighboring APs.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) and Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US9386457).
For Claim 22, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yamazaki teaches the method wherein the one or more radio usage parameters further include whether two or more of the plurality of radios are operating on a same frequency band (see column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 5, column 6 lines 20-40, column 7 lines 42-50)
Thus it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed for an AP to consider operations on a same frequency band as in Yamazaki when implementing the AP of Yue, Ramasamy and Kowal. The motivation would be to avoid interference among the transmit/receive chains of the AP.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) and Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2015/0200834).
For Claim 23, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yun teaches the method further comprising: making measurements of one or more Ethernet usage parameters pertaining to one or more Ethernet links of the AP, wherein the adjusting is further based on the measurements of the one or more Ethernet usage parameters (see paragraph 30: measuring ethernet throughput; paragraphs 63, 69-71: adjusting parameters to maximize throughput).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to measure ethernet parameters as in Yun when implementing the system of Yue and Ramasamy. The motivation would be to maximize throughput at the link layer.
For Claim 24, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yu teaches the method wherein the one or more Ethernet usage parameters includes an uplink throughput of an Ethernet link, a downlink throughput of an Ethernet link, a buffer occupancy of an uplink or downlink buffer for an Ethernet link, or a negotiated link rate for an Ethernet link (see paragraph 30: measuring ethernet throughput; paragraphs 63, 69-71: adjusting parameters to maximize throughput).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to measure ethernet parameters as in Yun when implementing the system of Yue and Ramasamy. The motivation would be to maximize throughput at the link layer.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al. (US 2023/0199660) and Ramasamy et al. (US 2018/0310133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (US 2005/0083999).
For Claim 26, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Koo teaches the method wherein the adjusting is further based on one or more control knob configurations that specify:
the one or more operating parameters of the radio that may be adjusted (see paragraphs 15, 29); and
adjustment ranges or limits for the one or more operating parameters of the radio (see paragraphs 15, 29).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to establish ranges for the parameters as in Koo when implementing the method of Yue and Ramasamy. The motivation would be to ensure the AP can maintain performance.
For Claim 27, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Koo teaches the method wherein the one or more control knob configurations specify that the one or more operating parameters of the radio that may be adjusted include the radio's on/off state, a number of transmit and receive chains used by the radio, a transmit power of the radio (see paragraphs 15, 29), or a channel bandwidth of the radio.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to establish ranges for the parameters as in Koo when implementing the method of Yue and Ramasamy. The motivation would be to ensure the AP can maintain performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 29 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections over prior art have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
With regards to claim language, please note that the wording (“based on at least a portion of the measurements of the one or more radio usage parameters, adjusting one or more operating parameters of the radio”) of independent claims does not require that the adjusting of the operating parameters be based on “the one or more radio usage parameters including a number of clients associated with the AP via the radio and a channel utilization of the radio”.
With respect to teachings of Ganu, please note that Ganu does teach adjusting operating parameters, but is not relied upon for teaching the adjustment of the operating parameters taught in Yue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cabral et al. (US 2017/0207956) teaches dynamically adjusting network node parameters based on the number of clients. Anantha et al. (US 2018/0295528) teaches optimizing an access point based on the number of stations served and performance metrics including channel utilization.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 1/29/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466