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, 6-10, 13, 15-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 2009/0109855)
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 17, Gong teaches a root access point (RAP), 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 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.)
However, in this case, the reference(s) teach all of the essential elements of the claim(s) except the integration of a plurality of parts (i.e., the root access point and the separate controller) to a single part. Further, it is well known in the art that when all of the essential elements of the claim(s) except integration of parts are found in the reference(s), the mere unity of parts is not considered to be an inventive concept. In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951), In re Murray, 19 C.C.P.A. 739, 53 F.2d 541, 11 USPQ 155; In re Zabel et al., 38 C.C.P.A. 832, 186 F.2d 735, 88 USPQ 367. Accordingly, at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to integrate the plurality of the root access point and the separate controller to a single root access point, since it is well known in the art that when all of the essential elements of the claim(s) except integration of parts are found in the reference(s), the mere unity of parts is not considered to be an inventive concept.
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 6, 15 and 19, Gong teaches the communication information is received from the two or more MAPs (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.)
Regarding Claim 7, Gong teaches the communication information is received from a controller of the RAP or from a computer (figure 2, see specificalluy controller 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Gong teaches the RAP is configured to determine the allocation of the network resources based at least in part on the communication information (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.)
Regarding Claim 9, Gong teaches the RAP is configured to: provide the communication information addressed to a controller of the RAP or a computer; and receive information specifying the allocation from the controller or the computer (¶ [0022], see specifically the RAP and MAP reporting, and ¶ [0029], assigned based on traffic load.)
Regarding Claim 10, 16 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, 14 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues, In contrast, the pending claims pertain to network communication and performing operations using a root access point. As conceded by the Examiner in the present Office Action, Gong discloses operations that are performed by a separate device (the controller) at a disparate location in the network. Thus, there is a structural difference in the network devices and their interactions in the disclosure of Gong versus the recited claim elements in the present patent application. The claims do not recite that the root access point and the controller have been combined into a single part.
Thus, the pending claims are not the same as the case law cited by the Examiner, nor do they represent unpatentable aggregation.
Moreover, accepting the Examiner's argument for sake of discussion, performing operations using a different device (the root access point versus the controller) result in a structure difference in the devices in the network and the function of the network is indicia for patentability under 35 U.S.C. §103. The performance of the operations by the root access point reduces the need for additional communication with the controller and, thus, network overhead. Furthermore, based on the disclosure in Gong, these improvements are not known or predictable to one of skill in the art, and one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to make these changes. For example, by using the root access point to perform the operations, the root access point can dynamically allocate the network resources based on the communication between the root access point and the mesh access point. Thus, the dynamic allocation can be performed based on the communication during operation of the root access point and the mesh access points. These capabilities are not available to the controller in Gong unless the root access point provides the requisite information to the controller using additional communication between the root access point and the controller.
Examiner disagrees, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized at the time of the invention that this would have been well known in the art at the time of the invention. Using a separate controller versus using one integrated into an access point is a tradeoff. For example, using a central server lowers the necessary computation by the root access point, and allows the root access point to be more cheaply made. Conversely, conversely, the artisan of ordinary skill would have realized that increasing the computing power of the access points would reduce latency and increase redundancy in the wireless network.
Examiner submits that Gong renders obvious the claimed invention.
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 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