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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swinehart (US 2022/0116295 A1), hereinafter “SWINEHART” in view of Harte et al. (US 2021/0368441 A1), hereinafter "HARTE” in view of Faccin (US 2006/0268802 A1), hereinafter "FACCIN”.
Regarding claim 1, SWINEHART teaches, ‘A Wi-Fi router, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0036]: For example, the third router may be a Wi-Fi router 120 associated with a Wi-Fi LAN IP being used at the user's location (e.g., home and/or business)):
‘and a connectivity circuit to learn a connectivity state of an external network connection of the Wi-Fi router’ (Paragraph [0013]: In some cases, the diagnostic server may include a testing component capable of pinging one or more nodes ( e.g., routers, testing servers, diagnostic logging servers, etc.) in order to determine a source of a connectivity issue (e.g., outage); Paragraph [0037]: The application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may receive operational data from the Wi-Fi WAN IP… which, in tum, will inform the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 whether or not there is an outage located at the user's location associated with the Wi-Fi WAN IP)
‘and provide connectivity state information to the Wi-Fi controller via an Application Programming Interface exposed by the Wi-Fi controller,’ (Paragraph [0044]: For example, a client 310 may monitor a connection status of the appliance 308 via one or more interfaces, such as an application programming interface (API) provided to the client 310 via the diagnostic server 306),
SWINEHART does not explicitly teach but HARTE teaches, ‘a Wi-Fi controller to perform at least access point and network configuration, provisioning, and management for the Wi-Fi router;’ (HARTE – Paragraphs [0015]-[0017]: The battery-powered device 102 includes communication circuitry 110. For example, the communication circuitry 110 can be a Wi-Fi chip (also referred to as a Wi-Fi transceiver, a Wi-Fi system-on-chip, a Wi-Fi module, or a wireless communication module) including one or more radios, a controller, and other circuitry configured to provide network connectivity (network configuration) for the battery-powered device 102… wireless access point 122 (e.g., a WLAN router) configured to route communications to and from the battery-powered device 102 via a wireless local area network (Management of the Wi-Fi Router) such as a network implementing the IEEE 802.11 standard (a Wi-Fi network)… The communication network(s) 120 and access point 122 facilitate transmissions of data packets between the battery-powered device 102 and other devices connected to the network (Provisioning)… In some implementations, the access point 122 is configured to synchronize the local network including the battery-powered device 102 by transmitting beacons (including DTIM beacons 161) to network-connected devices (Management of the Wi-Fi Router) according to the IEEE 802.11 standard… In some implementations, the server system 130 executes an Internet service that enables users of client devices 140 to program, interact with, and review information from network-connected, battery-powered devices 102 (Provisioning));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of HARTE with SWINEHART because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of HARTE into SWINEHART is that HARTE provides a local Wi-Fi controller/chip executing access point and network configuration, provisioning, and management functions that the architectural integration of Wi-Fi controllers/chips to provide automated connectivity management and power-efficient beacon processing across Wi-Fi routers and devices, where a hardware implementation of a integrated Wi-Fi controller chip that provisions 802.11 beacons and manages WLAN router connectivity while executing stored memory programs to optimize latency and power consumption (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], HARTE).
SWINEHART and HARTE do not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘wherein the connectivity state information includes information about the learned connectivity state of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router.’ (FACCIN – Paragraph [0055]: Type of service available: e.g. … this can indicate the type of service supported: Unrestricted, Unfettered Internet Access, Restricted Access----outbound TCP, UDP, ICMP, Ipsec, Web Access only, No Access; Paragraph [0067]: e.g. connected to Internet or not (i.e. grounded or free-standing network)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART and HARTE because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART and HARTE is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 1, SWINEHART teaches, ‘wherein to learn the connectivity state of the external network connection, the connectivity circuit to: test the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router;’ (Paragraph [0013]: In some cases, the diagnostic server may include a testing component capable of pinging one or more nodes ( e.g., routers, testing servers, diagnostic logging servers, etc.) in order to determine a source of a connectivity issue (e.g., outage); Paragraph [0018]: In some examples, the application stored on the UE may establish a testing session and ping different nodes of a network to obtain operational data associated with each node);
‘and determine the connectivity state of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router at least partially responsive to the test.’ (Paragraph [0019]: The application and/or diagnostic server may receive operational data from the first router ( e.g., such as determining if the first router elicits response to the ping) which, in turn, will inform the application and/or diagnostic server whether or not there is an outage located at the site caused by the first router; Paragraph [0037]: The application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may receive operational data from the Wi-Fi WAN IP… which, in tum, will inform the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 whether or not there is an outage located at the user's location associated with the Wi-Fi WAN IP).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 3, SWINEHART further teaches, ‘wherein to test the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router, the connectivity circuit to: send a message to a destination in an external network, the message including a request for a response from the destination;’ (Paragraph [0013]: In some cases, the diagnostic server may include a testing component capable of pinging one or more nodes ( e.g., routers, testing servers, diagnostic logging servers, etc.) in order to determine a source of a connectivity issue (e.g., outage); Paragraph [0018]: In some examples, the application stored on the UE may establish a testing session and ping different nodes of a network to obtain operational data associated with each node);
‘and determine the connectivity state of the connection to the external network at least partially responsive to a status of the requested response.’ (Paragraph [0019]: The application and/or diagnostic server may receive operational data from the first router ( e.g., such as determining if the first router elicits response to the ping) which, in turn, will inform the application and/or diagnostic server whether or not there is an outage located at the site caused by the first router; Paragraph [0037]: The application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may receive operational data from the Wi-Fi WAN IP… which, in tum, will inform the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 whether or not there is an outage located at the user's location associated with the Wi-Fi WAN IP).
Regarding claim 5, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 1, SWINEHART further teaches, ‘wherein the connectivity circuit to: learn information about a quality of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router;’ (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]: In some examples, the diagnostic server may test for latency, jitter, and/or network availability at defined bandwidth speeds… In some examples, the diagnostic server may provide Internet or network testing for latency, jitter, and/or Internet throughput);
‘determine a quality indicator responsive to learned information about the quality of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router;’ (Paragraph [0014]: In some cases, a light on the diagnostic server may be dedicated to informing the user of a quality of a connection from the testing of various types of service, such as a minimum quality for VOW and/or video-conferencing. In some cases, if this light is "green" the connection may be acceptable for VOIP and/or video-conferencing. Additionally, and/or alternatively, if the light is "red" the connection may not be suitable for VOIP and/or videoconferencing. Additionally, and/or alternatively, if the light is "yellow" the connection may be marginal for VOIP and/or video-conferencing);
‘and provide the quality indicator to the Wi-Fi controller.’ (Paragraph [0013]: In some cases, the diagnostic server may store testing data and send a network status indication to a user equipment (UE) and/or a computing device associated with an ISP; Paragraph [0044]: For example, a client 310 may monitor a connection status of the appliance 308 via one or more interfaces, such as an application programming interface (API) provided to the client 310 via the diagnostic server 306).
Regarding claim 6, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 5, SWINEHART further teaches, ‘wherein the quality indicator is indicative of one or more of: relative strength of a connection, bandwidth of a connection, average data volume on the connection, average upload speed of the connection, or average download speed of the connection.’ (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]: In some examples, the diagnostic server may test for latency, jitter, and/or network availability at defined bandwidth speeds… In some examples, the diagnostic server may provide Internet or network testing for latency, jitter, and/or Internet throughput; Paragraph [0016]: In some cases, the identification data may include a customer identifier, an internet protocol (IP) address, a subnet mask, a gateway, a domain name system (DNS), a Wi-Fi received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level, a cellular carrier's IP address, a cellular carrier's subnet mask, cellular carrier's gateway, a cellular carrier's RSSI, or a cellular carrier's name; Paragraph [0029]: In some examples, diagnostic server 106 may monitor and/or test the throughput and/or bandwidth being provided via a WAN, LAN, Wi-Fi, and the like).
Regarding claim 7, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 1, SWINEHART and HARTE do not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘wherein the Wi-Fi controller to generate beacons or probe-responses that include the connectivity state information.’ (FACCIN – Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]: In this embodiment, the 802.11 beacon is extended with a limited number of bits to indicate the ability of the AP to support discovery of information… The Probe Request/Response messages are also extended so that the STA can request information in a Probe
Request message and obtain them m a Probe Response message; Paragraph [0046]: When the STA listens to the beacon, it discovers that the AP can provide additional information. The STA then, if interested, sends a Probe Request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns the available information in a Probe Response based on the information; Paragraph [0075]: In operation, the beacon broadcast and processing module 102 is configured to extend a set of information that is available before a network node actually authenticates and associates to the wireless point of attachment in accordance with the present invention and consistent with that described herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART and HARTE because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART and HARTE is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
Regarding claim 8, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi router of claim 1, SWINEHART does not explicitly teach but HARTE teaches, ‘wherein the Wi-Fi controller includes one or more registers to store the connectivity state information received from the connectivity circuit.’ (HARTE – Paragraph [0015]: The battery-powered device 102 includes memory 106 storing programs that, when executed by processor(s) 108, perform one or more of the functions… The battery-powered device 102 includes communication circuitry 110. For example, the communication circuitry 110 can be a Wi-Fi chip (also referred to as a Wi-Fi transceiver, a Wi-Fi system-on-chip, a Wi-Fi module, or a wireless communication module) including one or more radios, a controller, and other circuitry configured to provide network connectivity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of HARTE with SWINEHART because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of HARTE into SWINEHART is that HARTE provides a local Wi-Fi controller/chip executing access point and network configuration, provisioning, and management functions that the architectural integration of Wi-Fi controllers/chips to provide automated connectivity management and power-efficient beacon processing across Wi-Fi routers and devices, where a hardware implementation of a integrated Wi-Fi controller chip that provisions 802.11 beacons and manages WLAN router connectivity while executing stored memory programs to optimize latency and power consumption (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], HARTE).
Regarding claim 9, SWINEHART teaches, ‘A Wi-Fi device, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0015]: In some cases, the diagnostic server may communicate with an application downloadable to a user's computing device (e.g., user equipment (UE)) in order to facilitate monitoring of the network and/or communication with the user. For example, the user may download the application onto the UE and the application may establish a connection (e.g., internet connection via Wi-Fi…)):
‘and a logic circuit of the Wi-Fi device controller, the logic circuit to: learn and store in memory a connectivity state of an external network connection of a Wi- Fi router…’ (Paragraph [0018]: In some examples, the application stored on the UE may establish a testing session and ping different nodes of a network to obtain operational data associated with each node; Paragraph [0037]: The application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may receive operational data from the Wi-Fi WAN IP… which, in tum, will inform the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 whether or not there is an outage located at the user's location associated with the Wi-Fi WAN IP)…
‘and determine whether to connect to the Wi-Fi router at least partially responsive to the stored connectivity state of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router.’ (Paragraph [0019]: if the first router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user ( e.g., via a message, notification, and/or light indicator) that there is an outage caused by the first router and to not attempt to fix the outage at their location; Paragraph [0021]: In some cases, if the third router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user… that there is an outage caused by the third router (e.g., the Wi-Fi LAN IP) located at the user's location).
SWINEHART does not explicitly teach but HARTE teaches, ‘a Wi-Fi device controller to manage connections to Wi-Fi routers;’ (HARTE – Paragraphs [0015]-[0016]: The battery-powered device 102 includes communication circuitry 110. For example, the communication circuitry 110 can be a Wi-Fi chip (also referred to as a Wi-Fi transceiver, a Wi-Fi system-on-chip, a Wi-Fi module, or a wireless communication module) including one or more radios, a controller, and other circuitry configured to provide network connectivity for the battery-powered device 102… to send and receive communications… to and from other network devices via the communication network(s) 120… wireless access point 122 (e.g., a WLAN router) configured to route communications to and from the battery-powered device 102 via a wireless local area network such as a network implementing the IEEE 802.11 standard (a Wi-Fi network));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of HARTE with SWINEHART because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of HARTE into SWINEHART is that HARTE provides a local Wi-Fi controller/chip executing access point and network configuration, provisioning, and management functions that the architectural integration of Wi-Fi controllers/chips to provide automated connectivity management and power-efficient beacon processing across Wi-Fi routers and devices, where a hardware implementation of a integrated Wi-Fi controller chip that provisions 802.11 beacons and manages WLAN router connectivity while executing stored memory programs to optimize latency and power consumption (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], HARTE).
SWINEHART and HARTE do not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘…from a beacon broadcast by the Wi-Fi router or a probe-response transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device, the beacon or probe-response including connectivity state information about the external network connection;’ (FACCIN – Abstract: When a station (STA) listens to the beacon, the STA discovers that the AP can provide additional information. If the STA is interested, the STA sends a probe request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns available information in a probe response based on the information; Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]: In this embodiment, the 802.11 beacon is extended with a limited number of bits to indicate the ability of the AP to support discovery of information… The Probe Request/Response messages are also extended so that the STA can request information in a Probe Request message and obtain them m a Probe Response message; Paragraph [0046]: When the STA listens to the beacon, it discovers that the AP can provide additional information. The STA then, if interested, sends a Probe Request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns the available information in a Probe Response based on the information; Paragraph [0055]: Type of service available: e.g. … Unrestricted, Unfettered Internet Access, Restricted Access----outbound TCP, UDP, ICMP, Ipsec, Web Access only, No Access; Paragraph [0067]: e.g. connected to Internet or not (i.e. grounded or free-standing network));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART and HARTE because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART and HARTE is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
Regarding claim 10, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi device of claim 9, SWINEHART further teaches, ‘wherein the logic circuit to learn the connectivity state of the external network connection of the Wi-Fi router while the Wi-Fi device is connected to a further Wi-Fi router, the further Wi-Fi router different than the Wi-Fi router.’ (Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]: In some examples, the application stored on the UE may establish a testing session and ping different nodes of a network to obtain operational data associated with each node… The application and/or diagnostic server may receive operational data from the first router ( e.g., such as determining if the first router elicits a response to the ping) which, in turn, will inform the application and/or diagnostic server whether or not there is an outage located at the site caused by the first router; Paragraph [0036]: In some cases, the application and/or diagnostic server 106 may ping other routers… after determining that the router 114 at the POP site 108 and the ISP router 118 at the ISP 116 are not the cause of an outage… For example, the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may ping a third router associated with a third IP address… the third router may be a Wi-Fi router 120).
Regarding claim 11, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi device of claim 9, SWINEHART further teaches, ‘wherein the logic circuit to: automatically connect to the Wi-Fi router at least partially responsive to determining the connectivity state of the external network connection corresponds to active connectivity.’ (Paragraph [0015]: For example, the user may download the application onto the UE and the application may establish a connection (e.g., internet connection via Wi-Fi, cellular connection, private network connection, public network connection, etc.) with the diagnostic server; Paragraph [0034]: In some examples, if the ISP router 118 does elicit a response, the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may inform the user ( e.g., via a message, notification, and/or light indicator) that the ISP router 118 is operating normally).
Regarding claim 12, SWINEHART, HARTE and FACCIN teach, The Wi-Fi device of claim 9, SWINEHART and HARTE do not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘wherein the logic circuit to: determine the connectivity state of the external network connection at least partially responsive to connectivity state information in an added field of a packet received from the Wi-Fi router.’ (FACCIN – Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]: In this embodiment, the 802.11 beacon is extended with a limited number of bits to indicate the ability of the AP to support discovery of information… The Probe Request/Response messages are also extended so that the STA can request information in a Probe Request message and obtain them m a Probe Response Message; Paragraph [0055]: Type of service available: e.g. … Unrestricted, Unfettered Internet Access, Restricted Access----outbound TCP, UDP, ICMP, Ipsec, Web Access only, No Access; Paragraphs [0072]-[0073]: A Requested Information descriptor will be used by the STA to request information (e.g. in extended Probe Request/Response). The descriptor will be a collection of parameter codes. Each parameter is defined in the standard and allocated, say, a 4 bits code. When the STA requests some parameters, it provides a list of parameters. A Returned Information descriptor will be used by the AP to return the STA the request information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART and HARTE because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART and HARTE is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
Regarding claim 13, SWINEHART teaches, ‘A method, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0012]: Discussed herein are methods and a systems for testing the quality and/or connectivity of a network connection, detecting and/or diagnosing a network system outage, and/or relaying information about that outage; Paragraph [0018]: In some examples, the application stored on the UE may establish a testing session and ping different nodes of a network to obtain operational data associated with each node):
‘and determining whether to connect to the Wi-Fi router at least partially responsive to the stored connectivity state of the external network connection.’ (Paragraph [0019]: if the first router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user ( e.g., via a message, notification, and/or light indicator) that there is an outage caused by the first router and to not attempt to fix the outage at their location; Paragraph [0021]: In some cases, if the third router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user… that there is an outage caused by the third router (e.g., the Wi-Fi LAN IP) located at the user's location).
SWINEHART does not explicitly teach but HARTE teaches, ‘storing the learned connectivity state in memory at a Wi-Fi controller;’ (HARTE – Paragraph [0015]: The battery-powered device 102 includes memory 106 storing programs that, when executed by processor(s) 108, perform one or more of the functions… The battery-powered device 102 includes communication circuitry 110. For example, the communication circuitry 110 can be a Wi-Fi chip (also referred to as a Wi-Fi transceiver, a Wi-Fi system-on-chip, a Wi-Fi module, or a wireless communication module) including one or more radios, a controller, and other circuitry configured to provide network connectivity);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of HARTE with SWINEHART because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of HARTE into SWINEHART is that HARTE provides a local Wi-Fi controller/chip executing access point and network configuration, provisioning, and management functions that the architectural integration of Wi-Fi controllers/chips to provide automated connectivity management and power-efficient beacon processing across Wi-Fi routers and devices, where a hardware implementation of a integrated Wi-Fi controller chip that provisions 802.11 beacons and manages WLAN router connectivity while executing stored memory programs to optimize latency and power consumption (See Paragraphs [0015]-[0017], HARTE).
SWINEHART and HARTE do not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘learning a connectivity state of an external network connection of a Wi-Fi router from a beacon broadcast by the Wi-Fi router or a probe-response transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by a Wi-Fi device, the beacon or probe-response including connectivity state information about the external network connection;’ (FACCIN – Abstract: When a station (STA) listens to the beacon, the STA discovers that the AP can provide additional information. If the STA is interested, the STA sends a probe request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns available information in a probe response based on the information; Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]: In this embodiment, the 802.11 beacon is extended with a limited number of bits to indicate the ability of the AP to support discovery of information… The Probe Request/Response messages are also extended so that the STA can request information in a Probe Request message and obtain them m a Probe Response message; Paragraph [0046]: When the STA listens to the beacon, it discovers that the AP can provide additional information. The STA then, if interested, sends a Probe Request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns the available information in a Probe Response based on the information; Paragraph [0055]: Type of service available: e.g. … Unrestricted, Unfettered Internet Access, Restricted Access----outbound TCP, UDP, ICMP, Ipsec, Web Access only, No Access; Paragraph [0067]: e.g. connected to Internet or not (i.e. grounded or free-standing network));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART and HARTE because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART and HARTE is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
Regarding claim 14, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claim is mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding method, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
SWINEHART teaches, ‘A method, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0012]: Discussed herein are methods and a systems for testing the quality and/or connectivity of a network connection, detecting and/or diagnosing a network system outage, and/or relaying information about that outage):
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWINEHART in view of FACCIN.
Regarding claim 17, SWINEHART teaches, ‘A system, comprising:’ (Paragraph [0026]: FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an illustrative environment 100 for monitoring network connectivity associated with internet service providers):
‘a first Wi-Fi router to provide a first external network connection;’ (Paragraph [0034]: the first router may be associated with an ISP 116 that is located at a site that is "upstream" from a user's location, such as an ISP router 118; Paragraph [0036]: For example, the third router may be a Wi-Fi router 120 associated with a Wi-Fi LAN IP being used at the user's location (e.g., home and/or business).
‘a second Wi-Fi router to provide a second external network connection, wherein respective connections of the first external network connection and second external network connection are to a same external network;’ (Paragraph [0026]: the internet 104; Paragraph [0035]: For example, the application 110 and/or diagnostic server 106 may ping a second router… located at the POP site 108 that is at a user's location and is "downstream" from the ISP router 118);
‘and determine whether to connect to the first Wi-Fi router at least partially responsive to the learned connectivity state of the first external network connection.’ (Paragraph [0019]: if the first router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user ( e.g., via a message, notification, and/or light indicator) that there is an outage caused by the first router and to not attempt to fix the outage at their location; Paragraph [0021]: In some cases, if the third router does not elicit a response, the application and/or diagnostic server may inform the user… that there is an outage caused by the third router (e.g., the Wi-Fi LAN IP) located at the user's location).
SWINEHART does not explicitly teach but FACCIN teaches, ‘and a Wi-Fi device, while connected to the second Wi-Fi router, to: learn, from a beacon broadcast by the first Wi-Fi router or a probe-response transmitted by the first Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device, a connectivity state of the first external network connection of the first Wi-Fi router;’ (FACCIN – Abstract: When a station (STA) listens to the beacon, the STA discovers that the AP can provide additional information. If the STA is interested, the STA sends a probe request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns available information in a probe response based on the information; Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]: In this embodiment, the 802.11 beacon is extended with a limited number of bits to indicate the ability of the AP to support discovery of information… The Probe Request/Response messages are also extended so that the STA can request information in a Probe Request message and obtain them m a Probe Response message; Paragraph [0046]: When the STA listens to the beacon, it discovers that the AP can provide additional information. The STA then, if interested, sends a Probe Request indicating which information it requires, and the AP returns the available information in a Probe Response based on the information; Paragraph [0055]: Type of service available: e.g. … Unrestricted, Unfettered Internet Access, Restricted Access----outbound TCP, UDP, ICMP, Ipsec, Web Access only, No Access; Paragraph [0067]: e.g. connected to Internet or not (i.e. grounded or free-standing network));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of FACCIN with SWINEHART because both are in the same/similar field of endeavor. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of FACCIN into SWINEHART is that FACCIN provides that a connectivity state information provided includes learned external Internet connectivity status (e.g., connected/unconnected to the Internet, unfettered access vs. no access and that the learned external connectivity state information is received from a broadcast beacon or a probe-response frame transmitted by the Wi-Fi router responsive to a probe sent by the Wi-Fi device prior to association, where extending management frames (beacons and probe requests/responses) to convey pre-association link, service, and external network connectivity information to mobile stations (See Paragraphs, [0043]-[0046], [0055], [0067], FACCIN).
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 HAESHIL J CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-5409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Ninos J Donabed can be reached on 571-272-8757. 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.
/HAESHIL JESSICA CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2479
/JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights