Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments contend in regards to prior art of reference Gao (US PG Pub No. 2024/0069144 A1), “none of this anywhere teaches or suggests any type of anomalous beacon communication” (see remarks, page 1).
Here, Examiner believes by “anomalous beacon communication” is taught by [0056] of Gau where at least classification from determining that a change has occurred is located. Examination believes the best instant support for “anomalous beacon communication” is found in instant paragraph [0005], “The method further comprises identifying the anomalous beacon communication in response to at least one of the baseline current consumption exceeding the modeled baseline current consumption by at least a first threshold amount or the current consumption exceeding the modeled current consumption by at least a second threshold amount.”
Gao specifically discloses “a change to a 100% beacon loss level ” and “determining that a change has occur[ed]” regarding the received beacon counts for communication in [0056]. Based on the identified Applicant support for ‘anomalous beacon communication’ there appears to be a reasonable interpretation here.
Furthermore, examination has further clarified the teachings of Gao here to show: “in response to determining the anomalous condition, classifying a type of an anomalous beacon communication (see [0056], classification from determining that a change has occurred, see “a change to a 100% beacon loss level” and “determining that a change has occur”);”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 21, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 2024/0069144 A1) in view of Muddu et al. (US Pat. No. 9516053).
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a system to perform a method comprising:
Receiving (may receive [0013]), in a machine learning (ML) classifier (see machine-learning and classification algorithm in [0013]), power plot information (see identifiable collection of different power levels, [0013]) associated with communication between a wireless device and an access point (see network of sending and receiving nodes; “transceiver node” [0013]);
analyzing, in the ML classifier (see analytic classification algorithm, [0013]), the power plot information (see [0013] “identifiable collection of different power levels”, regarding “quantifiable measures of beacons” and the collected beacon data is used to provide zone-specific signal fingerprint, ZRSF which are compared via the machine learning classification) comprising determining whether an anomalous condition exists with respect to beacon communication between the wireless device and the access point (see detected change, or change indication [0013] or significant change in conditions [0056]); and
in response to determining the anomalous condition, classifying a type of an anomalous beacon communication (see [0056], classification from determining that a change has occurred, see “a change to a 100% beacon loss level” and “determining that a change has occur”);and
Gao does not specifically disclose however Muddu et al. discloses determining a configuration for the wireless device based at least in part on the type of the anomalous beacon communication (see periodicity criterion and beacon type are anomalous in col. 118, lines 21-27);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Muddu with that of Gao. Doing so would conform to well-known conventions in the respective field of technology.
Regarding claim 2, Gao in view of Muddu discloses the computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises storing, in an entry of a database, information regarding the anomalous beacon communication, the entry associated with the access point (see databases [0061]).
Regarding claims 6, Gao in view of Muddu discloses the computer readable medium of claim 5, wherein the method further comprises providing configuration information to the wireless device, the configuration information to cause a controller of the wireless device to control at least one setting of an analog front end circuit of the wireless device (see control of circuitry [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 14-17, 21-23 & 25 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643