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 .
Applicant’s RCE filed 3/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 1, 11, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims (pages 11-13) in a reply filed 3/3/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. US 20110286437 (hereinafter “Austin”) in view of Vecera et al. US 20170135033 (hereinafter “Vecera”) and further in view of Hajduczenia US 20220132373 (hereinafter “Hajduczenia”)
As to claim 1, 11, and 20 (claim 1 is the method claim for the media device in claim 11 and claim 20 is the readable medium for the media device in claim 11):
Austin discloses:
A method performed by a media device for selecting an access point from a plurality of access points in a network associated with a plurality of composite metrics, wherein the plurality of access points comprises a first access point associated with a first composite metric and a second access point associated with a second composite metric, the method comprising: (“The present invention provides devices, systems, and methods to offload the usage of a cellular network, and to maximize battery life, by intelligent selection of broadband network connections such as Wi-Fi access points.”, Austin [0009]) (“access points can be ranked based on a performance grade as measured by the mobile devices, and subsequent commands to connect to a Wi-Fi access point as specific as to the highest-ranked access point.”, Austin [0052]) (“The application acts as a connection manager, grades the access points using, for instance, a qualification factor that is a combination of historical data about the particular access point, combined with the quality of the signal of the access point at the present time.”, Austin [0062]) (“This ratings application may rate available access points to determine ideal access points. This rating may include signal strength, security, number of other users, etc.”, Austin [0086]) (Examiner’s Note: ranking and rating of access points are done using multiple elements which maps to “composite metric”)
displaying, on a graphical user interface, a plurality of available wireless networks including the network and a second network, (“FIG. 20 shows the result of a scan for available access points, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the scan results are presented to the user as a list of available access points 2067, for instance, by name, as well as their signal strength, rating, security settings, connectivity status, etc. List 2067 may be based on a real-time detection of visible access points.”, Austin [0090])
wherein the network is associated with a composite metric score for the plurality of access points and the second network is associated with a second composite metric score, (“FIG. 21 shows a populated "My Spots" list 2171, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, list 2171 includes all access points the user has manually connected to, all service provider access points, and all access points automatically added by applications. The listing of each access point may include a rating, a number of times the user has connected to the access point, a date the access point was added, how the access point was added, etc. From list 2171, access points may be added, removed, edited, etc. List 2171 may be sorted by any of these variables.”, Austin [0093])
and wherein the plurality of available wireless networks is displayed in a ranked order based on the composite metric score and the second composite metric score; (FIG. 21 shows that the access points are “ranked” based on their rating, Austin)
identifying, responsive to receiving a selection of the network via the graphical user interface, the first access point as a highest ranked access point of the network based on the first composite metric being greater than the second composite metric at a time of the selection; (“The user may also be able to see the full list of available access points. If network assistance is not enabled, the user is prompted to select an access point from among the highest-ranked access points S668.”, Austin [0063])(FIG. 20, Austin)(“The user may then select to connect to the access point or cancel the connection attempt.”, Austin [0091]) (Examiner’s Note: the user selects an access point based on the highest rating/rank)
automatically connecting, responsive to the identifying, to the first access point of the network; (“FIG. 7 shows an auto-connect option of a mobile device, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the mobile device has been authorized to automatically connect to open access points.”, Austin [0064])
detecting, by the media device, a potential trigger condition in the network, wherein the potential trigger condition represents a change in a network condition in the network, (“The method may be triggered by a determination of a low signal strength of the cellular base stations or towers that provide service to the mobile device, by usage of a high-bandwidth application such as multimedia streaming, or by other triggers.”, Austin [0036])
evaluating the potential trigger condition against a threshold value associated with the network condition, (“In exemplary embodiments of the present invention, all of the above-described activation methods are triggered only when a threshold bandwidth or data transfer rate is exceeded, or if a high-bandwidth application is launched.”, Austin [0052]) wherein based on the evaluating: calculating a signal strength value for each access point in the plurality of access points, wherein the signal strength value for each access point comprises a first signal strength value based on the signal strength information for the first access point and a second signal strength value based on the second signal strength information for the second access point; (“The network assistance includes, for instance, a low-bandwidth broadcast transmitted to all mobile devices within the cell sector. This option may be preset by the user, with the user deciding whether to simply receive a list of available access points or have the cellular network recommend an access point. If network assist is enabled, the mobile device sends the list of detected access points to a server on the network S667. This may include the MAC address of each of the access points, as well as a signal strength, and other attributes. The server ranks these access points based on a combination of received attributes and historical data, and sends the results back to the mobile device.”, Austin [0063])
Austin as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the network is a mesh network, and wherein the plurality of access points share a single service set identifier (SSID);
while the media device is connected to the mesh network via the first access point: logging signal strength information of the first access point over a predetermined period of time; collecting second signal strength information of the second access point from a predetermined number of channel scans;
determining the first composite metric for the first access point based on the first signal strength value, at least one network capability of the media device, and at least one network capability of the first access point; determining the second composite metric for the second access point based on the second signal strength value, the at least one network capability of the media device, and at least one network capability of the second access point;
and determining to switch from the first access point to the second access point based on at least the first composite metric and the second composite metric while maintaining a connection with the mesh network.
However, Vecera further teaches mesh network and logging signal strength information to determine a score for selecting a mesh node which includes:
wherein the network is a mesh network, (“Methods, systems, and techniques are provided for selecting a mesh access point in a wireless communications network and using the selected mesh access point to connect to the wireless communications network.”, Vecera [0004])
while the media device is connected to the mesh network via the first access point: logging signal strength information of the first access point over a predetermined period of time; collecting second signal strength information of the second access point from a predetermined number of channel scans; (“Wireless device 102 may constantly switch its source of data because it is detecting a plurality of mesh nodes and calculating scores for them to compare. For example, wireless device 102 may switch from connecting to mesh node 104A as an access point to connecting to mesh node 104B as an access point, etc. It may be desirable to prevent wireless device 102 from switching to another access point until a threshold period of time has elapsed in order to reduce the switching of access points. In such an example, wireless device 102 may be unable to use another device as an access point for a threshold period of time (e.g., a couple of minutes) to prevent constant switching in the network.”, Vecera [0071]) (“In some examples, wireless device 102 determines whether a threshold period of time has elapsed. In response to a determination that the threshold period of time has elapsed, NIC 215 detects the second plurality of mesh nodes. As such, NIC 215 waits a threshold period of time before scanning communications medium 304 for devices.”, Vecera [0072]) (“Wireless device 102 may determine the quality of signal of a connection between wireless device 102 and the respective mesh node in a variety of ways. In an example, the set of data packets includes a request for the quality of signal between wireless device 102 and the respective mesh node. In such an example, one or more of the mesh nodes connected on communications medium 304 may receive the set of data packets with the quality of signal request and return their respective quality of signal to scoring module 224. In this example, the respective mesh node sends the quality of signal information to wireless device 102.”, Vecera [0054]) (Examiner’s Note: the wireless device remains connected to a mesh node until it reaches a threshold period of time before scanning for devices again; In addition, it sends a set of data packets with the quality of signal request while it’s connected to a mesh node which implies that the wireless devices scans and collects data related to signal quality for a predetermined period of time. This process is repeated for the other mesh nodes)
determining the first composite metric for the first access point based on the first signal strength value, at least one network capability of the media device, and at least one network capability of the first access point; determining the second composite metric for the second access point based on the second signal strength value, the at least one network capability of the media device, and at least one network capability of the second access point; (“Scoring module 224 calculates a score for one or more mesh nodes of the plurality of mesh nodes. In some examples, the score for a mesh node is based on the hop distance between the respective mesh node and a root access point, the quality of signal between the wireless device and the respective mesh node, the data bandwidth between the wireless device and the respective mesh node, and/or the current number of mesh nodes using the respective mesh node as a wireless access point to connect to the wireless communications network. In an example, the score is calculated using the following score function: ((hop distance between the respective mesh node and root access point 106) * A)+((quality of signal between the wireless device and the respective mesh node) * B)+((data bandwidth between the wireless device and the respective mesh node) * C)+((current number of mesh nodes using the respective mesh node as a wireless access point to connect to the wireless communications network) * D), where A, B, D, and D are constant numbers.”, Veera [0063]) (“Scoring module 224 selects, based on the calculated scores, a mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L to connect to as a mesh access point in order to connect to wireless communications network 108. In an example, a score of the selected mesh node is higher than a score of another mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L. In such an example, the score of the selected mesh node may be the highest score of the calculated scores. In another example, a score of the selected mesh node is lower than a score of another mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L. In such an example, the score of the selected mesh node may be the lowest score of the calculated scores.”, Vecera [0064])
and determining to switch from the first access point to the second access point based on at least the first composite metric and the second composite metric while maintaining a connection with the mesh network. (“Scoring module 224 selects, based on the calculated scores, a mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L to connect to as a mesh access point in order to connect to wireless communications network 108. In an example, a score of the selected mesh node is higher than a score of another mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L. In such an example, the score of the selected mesh node may be the highest score of the calculated scores. In another example, a score of the selected mesh node is lower than a score of another mesh node of plurality of mesh nodes 104A-104C and 104L. In such an example, the score of the selected mesh node may be the lowest score of the calculated scores.”, Vecera [0064]) (“Wireless device 102 may constantly switch its source of data because it is detecting a plurality of mesh nodes and calculating scores for them to compare. For example, wireless device 102 may switch from connecting to mesh node 104A as an access point to connecting to mesh node 104B as an access point, etc. It may be desirable to prevent wireless device 102 from switching to another access point until a threshold period of time has elapsed in order to reduce the switching of access points. In such an example, wireless device 102 may be unable to use another device as an access point for a threshold period of time (e.g., a couple of minutes) to prevent constant switching in the network.”, Vecera [0071])
Austin and Vecera are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include mesh network and logging signal strength information to determine a score for selecting a mesh node as described in Vecera into Austin. By modifying the method to include mesh network and logging signal strength information to determine a score for selecting a mesh node as taught by Vecera, the benefits of improved process of monitoring access points (Gilson [0074] and Austin [0012]) are achieved.
The combination of Austin and Vecera as described above does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of access points share a single service set identifier (SSID);
However, Anantha further teaches access points sharing a SSID which includes:
wherein the plurality of access points share a single service set identifier (SSID); (FIG. 4 shows all APs sharing the same SSID) (“The wireless network 2000 includes AP1 2100, AP2 2200, and AP3 2300, each providing a wireless coverage 2110, 2210, and 2310, respectively. The AP1 2100, AP2 2200, and AP3 2300 are part of an ESS and share a common SSID, namely, WorkWiFi.”, Hajduczenia [0033]) (“In implementations, a wireless mesh network or topology can be used for connectivity between the pAP1 4200, pAP2 4300, and pAP3 4400 and the switch and/or router 4500 in contrast to having each of the pAP1 4200, pAP2 4300, and pAP3 4400 being connected to the switch and/or router 4500. That is, a topology of the vAP 4100 can be implemented using a variety of networking techniques.”, Hajduczenia [0041])
Austin, Hajduczenia, and Vecera are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include access points sharing a SSID as described in Hajduczenia into Austin as modified by Vecera. By modifying the method to include access points sharing a SSID as taught by Hajduczenia, the benefits of improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera and Hajduczenia, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jorgovanovic US 10305951 (hereinafter “Jorgovanovic”)
As to claim 3 and 13 (claim 13 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first composite metric and the second composite metric further comprises: identifying a first maximum data rate of the first access point by performing a first lookup in a data rate table, wherein the first lookup utilizes the first signal strength value, the at least one network capability of the media device, and the at least one network capability of the first access point and wherein the first composite metric is set equal to the first maximum data rate; identifying a second maximum data rate of the first access point by performing a second lookup in the data rate table, wherein the second lookup utilizes the second signal strength value, the at least one network capability of the media device, and the at least one network capability of the second access point, and wherein the second composite metric is set equal to the second maximum data rate.
However, Jorgovanovic further teaches determining maximum data rate using a lookup table which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first composite metric and the second composite metric further comprises: identifying a first maximum data rate of the first access point by performing a first lookup in a data rate table (“the media device 102 may determine the maximum supported data rate using a lookup table based on characteristics of the AP 20”, Jorgovanovic [54]), wherein the first lookup utilizes the first signal strength value (“using the first signal quality metrics”, Jorgovanovic [52]), the at least one network capability of the media device, and the at least one network capability of the first access point and wherein the first composite metric is set equal to the first maximum data rate (“the media device 102 may determine the expected throughput using the maximum supported data rate (PHYRate_Max), the stream number (SS_Num) and the scaling factor (RSSILvlFactor) using equation 6”, Jorgovanovic [59]); identifying a second maximum data rate of the first access point by performing a second lookup in the data rate table (“the media device 102 may determine the maximum supported data rate using a lookup table based on characteristics of the AP 20”, Jorgovanovic [54]), wherein the second lookup utilizes the second signal strength value (“second signal quality metrics”, Jorgovanovic [52]), the at least one network capability of the media device, and the at least one network capability of the second access point, and wherein the second composite metric is set equal to the second maximum data rate. (“the media device 102 may determine the expected throughput using the maximum supported data rate (PHYRate_Max), the stream number (SS_Num) and the scaling factor (RSSILvlFactor) using equation 6”, Jorgovanovic [59])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Jorgovanovic are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining maximum data rate using a lookup table as described in Jorgovanovic into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia By modifying the method to include determining maximum data rate using a lookup table as taught by Jorgovanovic, the benefits of improved user experience (Jorgovanovic [14]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
As to claim 5 and 15 (claim 15 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: identifying a first corresponding entry in a data rate lookup table based on the at least one network capability of the first access point and the network capability of the media device; and identifying a second corresponding entry in the data rate lookup table based on the at least one network capability of the second access point and the network capability of the media device.
However, Jorgovanovic further teaches identifying data rate using a lookup table which includes:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: identifying a first corresponding entry in a data rate lookup table based on the at least one network capability of the first access point and the network capability of the media device; and identifying a second corresponding entry in the data rate lookup table based on the at least one network capability of the second access point and the network capability of the media device. (“the lookup table may take into account the device 110 and its wireless capability”, Jorgovanovic [41]) (“the media device 102 may determine a maximum supported data rate (PHYRate_Max) per channel of the second wireless network. For example, the media device 102 may determine the maximum supported data rate using a lookup table based on characteristics of the AP 20”, Jorgovanovic [54])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Jeong are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identifying data rate using a lookup table as described in Jorgovanovic into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include identifying data rate using a lookup table as taught by Jorgovanovic, the benefits of improved user experience (Jorgovanovic [14]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
As to claim 6 and 16 (claim 16 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 5, wherein the first corresponding entry indicates a maximum achievable data rate of the first access point based on the at least one network capability of the first access point and the second corresponding entry indicates a maximum achievable data rate of the second access point based on the at least one network capability of the second access point.
However, Jorgovanovic further teaches identifying maximum data rate of AP which includes:
The method of claim 5, wherein the first corresponding entry indicates a maximum achievable data rate of the first access point based on the at least one network capability of the first access point and the second corresponding entry indicates a maximum achievable data rate of the second access point based on the at least one network capability of the second access point. (“the media device 102 may determine a maximum supported data rate (PHYRate_Max) per channel of the second wireless network. For example, the media device 102 may determine the maximum supported data rate using a lookup table based on characteristics of the AP 20”, Jorgovanovic [54])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Jorgovanovic are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identifying maximum data rate of AP as described in Jorgovanovic into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include identifying maximum data rate of AP as taught by Jorgovanovic, the benefits of improved user experience (Jorgovanovic [14]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera and Hajduczenia, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jeong et al. US 20150139010 (hereinafter “Jeong”)
As to claim 2 and 12 (claim 12 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal strength value represents a time-averaged value based on signal strength information associated with each access point and a predetermined time window.
However, Jeong further teaches time-averaged signal strength data which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal strength value represents a time-averaged value based on signal strength information associated with each access point and a predetermined time window. (“user equipment 100 generates and transmits LQM request frame 600 to access points 201 to 203 and access points 201 to 203 generate and transmit LQM response frame 700 to user equipment 100 in response to LQM request frame 600”, Jeong [0084]) (“the quality parameters included in Measurement field 605 or 705 may include average signal strength (e.g., RSSI) of LQM frames and the number of LQM frames (e.g., frame count)”, Jeong [0084])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Jeong are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include time-averaged signal strength data as described in Jeong into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include time-averaged signal strength data as taught by Jeong, the benefits of improved accuracy (Jeong [0080]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausitn in view of Vecera and Hajduczenia, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huang et al. US 20180242344 (hereinafter “Huang”)
As to claim 4 and 14 (claim 14 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one network capability of the first access point comprises a maximum number of supported streams of the first access point, a maximum channel bandwidth of the first access point, and a maximum bandwidth of the first access point and the at least one network capability of the media device comprises a maximum number of supported streams of the media device, a maximum channel bandwidth of the media device, and a maximum bandwidth of the media device.
However, Huang further teaches network capability including maximum bandwidth and maximum number of supported streams which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one network capability of the first access point comprises a maximum number of supported streams of the first access point (“the effective number of spatial streams for a MU capable station may correspond to a maximum number of spatial streams supported by the station”, Huang [0079]), a maximum channel bandwidth of the first access point, and a maximum bandwidth of the first access point (“means for determining the scheduling metric may be configured to determine a maximum bandwidth on which each station of the plurality of stations operates”, Huang [0079]) and the at least one network capability of the media device comprises a maximum number of supported streams of the media device (“the effective number of spatial streams for a MU capable station may correspond to a maximum number of spatial streams supported by the station”, Huang [0079]), a maximum channel bandwidth of the media device, and a maximum bandwidth of the media device. (“means for determining the scheduling metric may be configured to determine a maximum bandwidth on which each station of the plurality of stations operates”, Huang [0079])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network capability including maximum bandwidth and maximum number of supported streams as described in Huang into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include network capability including maximum bandwidth and maximum number of supported streams as taught by Huang, the benefits of improved efficacy (Huang [0007]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Zhu et al. US 9819901 (hereinafter “Zhu”)
As to claim 8 and 18 (claim 18 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum channel bandwidth between the media device and the first access point based on determining a minimum bandwidth between the maximum bandwidth of the first access point and the maximum bandwidth of the media device; based on the maximum channel bandwidth between the media device and the first access point.
However, Zhu further teaches determining the maximum or fixed bandwidth between the device and network device which includes:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: (“The client 20 may use the beacon frames and/or the probe response frames to determine connection characteristics associated with each access point (e.g., signal strengths or other metrics), and the client 20 may select a particular access point having the best connection characteristics.”, Zhu [36]) calculating a maximum channel bandwidth between the media device and the first access point based on determining a minimum bandwidth between the maximum bandwidth of the first access point and the maximum bandwidth of the media device; based on the maximum channel bandwidth between the media device and the first access point. (“the maximum amount of bandwidth available to the device 102 may be based on network components within the device 102 or a fixed bandwidth/speed of network devices connected to the device 102”, Zhu [33])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, Huang, and Zhu are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the maximum or fixed bandwidth between the device and network device as described in Zhu into the method of Austin as modified by Huh, Anantha, and Huang. By modifying the method to include determining the maximum or fixed bandwidth between the device and network device as taught by Zhu, the benefits of improved efficacy (Huang [0007]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Zhu [30]), Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Shapira et al. US 20110273977 (hereinafter “Shapira”)
As to claim 7 and 17 (claim 17 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point based on determining a minimum number of supported streams between the maximum number of supported streams of the first access point and the maximum number of supported streams of the media device; determining the first composite metric based on the maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point.
However, Huang further teaches determining a metric based on the maximum number of streams which includes:
determining the first composite metric based on the maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point. (“determining the first composite metric based on the maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point.”, Huang [0040])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network capability including maximum bandwidth and maximum number of supported streams as described in Huang into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include network capability including maximum bandwidth and maximum number of supported streams as taught by Huang, the benefits of improved efficacy (Huang [0007]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
The combination of Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point based on determining a minimum number of supported streams between the maximum number of supported streams of the first access point and the maximum number of supported streams of the media device;
However, Shapira further teaches determining maximum number of streams based on the minimum of the maximum supported by devices which includes:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point based on determining a minimum number of supported streams between the maximum number of supported streams of the first access point and the maximum number of supported streams of the media device; determining the first composite metric based on the maximum number of supported streams between the media device and the first access point. (“a beamformer can transmit a maximum number of spatial streams which may be equal to the minimum between the number of beamformer antennas and total number of beamformees antennas”, Shapira [0037])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, Huang, and Shapira are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network capability including determining maximum number of streams based on the minimum of the maximum supported by devices as described in Shapira into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang. By modifying the method to include network capability including determining maximum number of streams based on the minimum of the maximum supported by devices as taught by Shapira, the benefits of improved efficacy (Huang [0007]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Shapira [0076]), Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang, as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Kim et al. US 20170163513 (hereinafter “Kim”)
As to claim 9 and 19 (claim 19 is with respect to the media device in claim 11 and 1):
The combination of Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum mutually-supported Wi-Fi generation between the media device and the first access point based on determining a highest version of Wi-Fi generations that is shared between the media device and the first access point; determining the first composite metric based on the maximum mutually-supported Wi-Fi generation between the media device and the first access point.
However, Kim further teaches determining Wi-Fi version which includes:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining the first composite metric comprises: calculating a maximum mutually-supported Wi-Fi generation between the media device and the first access point based on determining a highest version of Wi-Fi generations that is shared between the media device and the first access point; determining the first composite metric based on the maximum mutually-supported Wi-Fi generation between the media device and the first access point.
(“At operation 420, the electronic device 101 (e.g., the processor 120) may determine a data traffic rate of the AP by using the received network information, e.g., tag information associated with a WiFi mode. For example, the processor 120 may determine a WiFi mode of the AP, based on the tag information (e.g., data traffic rate information and bandwidth information of a communication channel). The processor 120 may set the data traffic rate, based on whether the communication interface 160 of the electronic device 101 supports multi input multi output (MIMO), and based on the determined WiFi mode. Depending on the WiFi mode and whether MIMO is supportable, the data traffic rate may be determined as shown in Table 1.”, Kim [0112]) (“the electronic device 101 may select a specific AP including the highest EDR from among APs (e.g., in Group 1).”, Kim [0121])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, Huang, and Kim are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining Wi-Fi version as described in Kim into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Huang. By modifying the method to include determining Wi-Fi version as taught by Kim, the benefits of improved efficacy (Huang [0007]) and improved process of monitoring access points (Austin [0012], Kim [0081]), Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Vecera and Hajduczenia, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yun et al. US 20170142644 (hereinafter “Yun”)
As to claim 10:
The combination of Austin, Vecera, and Hajduczenia as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one network capability of the second access point comprises a maximum number of supported streams by the second access point, a maximum channel bandwidth of the second access point, and a maximum mutually-supported Wi- Fi generation between the media device and the second access point.
However, Yun further teaches network capability of access points including maximum number of streams, maximum bandwidth, and Wi-Fi version which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one network capability of the second access point comprises a maximum number of supported streams by the second access point, a maximum channel bandwidth of the second access point, and a maximum mutually-supported Wi- Fi generation between the media device and the second access point. (“wireless communication capability of the computing device (e.g., Wi-Fi standards: 802.11b, g, n, ac; supported data rates, number of antennas, maximum observed data throughput, observed data rates, communication bandwidths)”, Yun [0014]) (“Wi-Fi enabled devices have different capabilities (e.g., maximum constellation size, maximum number of simultaneous transmit-streams, maximum bandwidth, etc.) which result in different performance characteristics.”, Yun [0030])
Austin, Vecera, Hajduczenia, and Yun are analogous because they pertain to monitoring performance metrics of APs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include network capability of access points including maximum number of streams, maximum bandwidth, and Wi-Fi version as described in Yun into the method of Austin as modified by Vecera and Hajduczenia. By modifying the method to include network capability of access points including maximum number of streams, maximum bandwidth, and Wi-Fi version as taught by Yun, the benefits of improved process of monitoring access points (Yun [0014 and 0030]), Austin [0012], Kim [0081]), Hajduczenia [0059], and Vecera [0054]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights