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 .
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2009/0109855) in view of Henriques de Jesus (US 2022/0377594).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Gong teaches a network controller, comprising:
one or more interface circuits configured to communicate with at least two mesh access points (MAPs) in a mesh network and one or more electronic devices in a wired network (figure 2, see the RAP and the nodes), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, from the two or more MAP’s, communication information associated with operation of the two or more MAPs (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.) and
allocate network resources in the mesh network to the two or more MAPs based at least in part on the communication information (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.)
Gong fails to explicitly teach the network controller is built into the root access point.
Henreques de Jesus teaches the network controller is built into the root access point (¶ [0008], see specifically the root AP typically contains the controller.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to place the controller within the root access point.
The motivation is that it allows the system to be made more applicable to the general public in residential Wi-Fi deployments, as you need not convince them to purchase a separate piece of hardware to control the network and by reducing complexity for the end user.
Regarding Claim 2 and 21, Gong teaches the allocation is based at least in part on second communication information associated with operation of the RAP (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.)
Regarding Claim 10 and 20, Gong teaches the communication information of a given MAP in the two or more MAPs comprises: a number of clients of the given MAP; a received signal strength of wireless signals associated with the RAP; modulation coding scheme (MCS) data rates; average throughput of the given MAP with clients of the given MAP; or a traffic type (¶ [0013], see specifically signal strength.)
Claim(s) 3-5, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2009/0109855) in view of Zheng (US 2019/0229994).
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Gong fails to explicitly teach the network resources comprise airtimes of the two or more MAPs.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the network resources comprise airtimes of the two or more MAPs (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Regarding Claim 4, Gong fails to explicitly teach a first airtime of a first MAP in the two or more MAPs is different from a second airtime of a second MAP in the two or more MAPs.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor a first airtime of a first MAP in the two or more MAPs is different from a second airtime of a second MAP in the two or more MAPs (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Regarding Claim 5, Gong fails to explicitly teach the first airtime and the second airtime ensure that clients of the first MAP and the second MAP have approximately the same or equal communication performance.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor the first airtime and the second airtime ensure that clients of the first MAP and the second MAP have approximately the same or equal communication performance (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Regarding Claim 11 and 23, Gong fails to explicitly teach the communication information is received from a given MAP via a beacon associated with the given MAP using a vendor specific attribute, or via a management frame or a control frame associated with the given MAP.
Zheng the communication information is received from a given MAP via a beacon associated with the given MAP using a vendor specific attribute, or via a management frame or a control frame associated with the given MAP (¶ [0035], see specifically control slots).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Regarding Claim 12, Gong fails to explicitly teach the RAP is configured to request the communication information using a second beacon that includes a request for the communication information, or via a second management frame or a second control frame that includes a request for the communication information.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor the RAP is configured to request the communication information using a second beacon that includes a request for the communication information, or via a second management frame or a second control frame that includes a request for the communication information (¶ [0035], see specifically control slots).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Regarding Claim 22, Gong fails to explicitly teach a first airtime of a first MAP in the two or more MAPs is different from a second airtime of a second MAP in the two or more MAPs; and
wherein the first airtime and the second airtime ensure that clients of the first MAP and the second MAP have approximately the same or equal communication performance.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a first airtime of a first MAP in the two or more MAPs is different from a second airtime of a second MAP in the two or more MAPs (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements); and
wherein the first airtime and the second airtime ensure that clients of the first MAP and the second MAP have approximately the same or equal communication performance (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Claim(s) 24, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2009/0109855) in view of Chennichetty (US 2021/0120454)
Regarding Claim 24, Gong teaches method for allocating network resources in a mesh network, comprising:
receiving communication information associated with operation of the MAP (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.); and
allocating, by the RAP, the network resources in the mesh network to the MAP based at least in part on the communication information (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.).
Gong fails to explicitly teach receiving, by a root access point (RAP) from a mesh access point (MAP) in the mesh network via a management frame or a control frame associated with the MAP.
Chennichetty from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches receiving, by a root access point (RAP) from a mesh access point (MAP) in the mesh network via a management frame or a control frame associated with the MAP (¶ [0060], see specifically MAP Controller, and see specifically ¶ [0064], see specifically management frames).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to include the network controller within the root access point of the system of Gong and to also use management frames to manage the network in the system.
The motivation is that it allows the system to be made more applicable to the general public in residential Wi-Fi deployments, as you need not convince them to purchase a separate piece of hardware to control the network and by reducing complexity for the end user.
Regarding Claim 25, Gong teaches requesting the communication information using a beacon that includes a request for the communication information, or via a second management frame or a second control frame that includes a request for the communication information (¶ [0038], see specifically request.)
Regarding Claim 27, Gong teaches the communication information comprises a number of clients of the MAP, a received signal strength of wireless signals associated with the RAP, modulation coding scheme (MCS) data rates, average throughput of the MAP with clients of the MAP, or a traffic type (¶ [0013], see specifically signal strength.).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2009/0109855) in view of Chennichetty (US 2021/0120454) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Zheng (US 2019/0229994).
Regarding Claims 26, Gong fails to explicitly teach the network resources comprise airtimes of the two or more MAPs.
Zheng from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the network resources comprise airtimes of the two or more MAPs (¶ [0053], see specifically bandwidth allocation schedule and data traffic requirements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to schedule the channels in the system of Gong as taught by Zheng.
The motivation is that it reduces interference and improves performance between the access points and their clients allowing them to coordinate when they communicating with client nodes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Zheng describes bandwidth allocation schedules between distribution nodes. However, Zheng's allocation is performed through peer-to-peer negotiation where "the second distribution node adjusts the proposed bandwidth allocation schedule based upon data traffic requirements of the second distribution node". (See Zheng, 0005.) Zheng fails to disclose or suggest a RAP that allocates "airtimes of the two or more MAPs" as recited by Claim 3. In other words, the RAP of Claim 1 determines and allocates airtimes to the MAPs, whereas allocation of bandwidth is performed by Zheng through peer-to-peer negotiation. Accordingly, dependent Claim 3 is separately patentable over the cited references.
Examiner disagrees, looking to ¶ [0033]:
[0033] Similarly, the controller 32 may attempt to allocate enough RUs in frequency and time to allow both low latency client devices and high bandwidth client devices to achieve their bandwidth demands. However, there will sometimes not be enough bandwidth to accommodate all client devices simultaneously, and the controller 32 will have to divide the RUs as equitably as possible, spreading the effects of congestion across all the APs.
The resource units being allocated in Zheng are based on blocks of time and frequency, where the access point can use the frequency. This would render obvious airtime, as airtime is use of a frequency for a period of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights