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 .
Notes
It is further recommended that applicants amend and further narrow claims 33 or 34 to overcome the prior art and incorporate claims 33 and 31 into 30 or 34 and 31 into 30 and make similar changes to the other independent claims as this appears to be the best path to novelty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30, 35, 36, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Omer et al (US 9,524,628).
Regarding claim 30, Omer teaches a method of controlling operations in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
a wireless station [see “motion detector device 104” – col 5 lines 47-50] associating to an access point of the wireless communication system, the access point operating on a first wireless channel [see wireless access point 102a – col 5 lines 47-50; see wireless network for wireless channel – col 3 lines 53 - 58]; and
while the wireless station is associated to the access point, the wireless station receiving beacons periodically transmitted by one or more other access points on one or more second wireless channels different from the first wireless channel [see “beacon signals” – col 5 lines 35 – 38; col lines 64 - 67; see access point 102B for second wireless access point; see col 3 lines 53 – 58 “…the first wireless access point 102A and the second wireless access point 102B are two different types of devices (e.g. wireless access points for two different types of network…”] and
based on the received beacons, the wireless station performing measurements for sensing one or more human beings or animals in an environment of the wireless station [see col 14 lines 14 – 17 “motion detector device in Fig 1A to detect motion of person 106 (or another type of object) based on channel responses derived from wireless signals from one or both of the wireless access points 102A or 102B”].
Regarding claim 35, Omer discloses the method of claim 30, comprising:
the wireless station receiving periodically transmitted further beacons on the first wireless channel [see “signals transmitted by the wireless access points 102A, 102B are repeated transmitted” to the motion detector device – col 5 lines 42 – 46];
wherein the measurements for sensing of the one or more human beings or animals in the environment of the wireless station are further based on the further beacons [see col 6 lines 51- 61; col 5 lines 64 – 67; the object detected is either a person or an animal; measurements for sensing are implicitly taught since motion is detected from movement; measurements include approximate location and proximity of the motion – see col 6 lines 33 – 41].
Regarding claim 36, Omer teaches the method of claim 30, comprising:
based on the measurements, the wireless station evaluating presence, location, and/or movement of the one or more human beings or animals in the environment of the wireless station [the object detected is either a person or an animal; measurements for sensing are implicitly taught since motion is detected from movement; measurements include approximate location and proximity of the motion – see col 6 lines 33 – 41].
Regarding claim 48, A wireless station for operation in a wireless communication system, the wireless station comprising at least one processor and a memory containing program code executable by the at least one processor, the program code being configured such that execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the wireless station to:
associate to an access point of the wireless communication system, the access point operating on a first wireless channel; and
while the wireless station is associated to the access point, receive beacons periodically transmitted by one or more other access points on one or more second wireless channels different from the first wireless channel; and
based on the received beacons, perform measurements for sensing one or more human beings or animals in an environment of the wireless station [see rejection for claim 30 as the same claim elements are recited; it is noted that the motion detector device comprises a processor, memory and program code needed to perform the steps of claim 48; see fig 1A elements 114 and 116]
Claim(s) 38, 39, 40, 42, 44 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sadek (US 2014/0226505; cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 38, Sadek teaches a method of controlling operations in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
an access point of the wireless communication system periodically transmitting beacons on a first wireless channel [para 0033 – beacons are transmitted by each AP as the the AP listens for beacons from other Aps and a report is generated by STA to be reported to each AP; it is noted that each AP transmits beacons periodically as it is understood that each AP transmits more than one beacon];
the access point estimating a timing of one or more beacons periodically transmitted on one or more second wireless channels different from the first wireless channel (paragraph [0033]: "Overlapping BSSs may select non-overlapping beacons so that STAs may decode beacons from different BSSs to facilitate mobility. If BSSs are hidden from each other, an AP may rely on STA measurements to know beacon timing for all beacons heard by all STAs and by the AP itself. The STAs may report all beacon timings from all BSSIDs and report the timing and BSSIDs to the AP"; paragraph [0034]: "[...] the APs may rely on STA assistance to determine the periodic time intervals. For example, it may be desirable for the periodic time intervals for the APs 110a, 110b, 110c to be different because the APs 110a, 110b, 110c are overlapping APs. The STAs may listen for beacons from other BSSs and help the AP in selecting the periodic time interval. For example, AP 110b may rely on assistance from STA 120a to listen for beacons from other BSSs. STA 120a may hear the beacons from APs 110a, 110c and communicate the beacon timing to AP 110b"; paragraph [0027]: "The one or channels for each AP may be chosen or selected to minimize interference between cells"; paragraph [0031]: "smart channel selection" that is based on AP measurements whether the traffic is DL (from AP to STA) or UL (from STA to AP)" and, respectively, "based on the AP measuring beacons from other APs and deciding on the channel with least interference". It is noted that estimated timing is met by using measurements to determine beacon timings from hidden BSSs); and
based on the estimated timing, the access point coordinating the timing of transmitting the beacons on the first wireless channel with the timing of transmitting the beacons on the one or more second wireless channels, wherein said coordinating of the timing reduces a time overlap of the beacons transmitted on the first wireless channel with the beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels [(paragraph [0033]: "Integration of information at the AP may take into account one or both the timing and signal strength of the measurements from the different STAs through giving higher weight to beacons received at higher signal strength because it indicates a nearby and potentially higher interfering BSS"; paragraph [0034]: "Based on the information received from STA 120a, AP 110b may determine the periodic time interval….it may be desirable for the periodic time intervals for the Aps 110a, 110b, 110c to be different because the Aps 110a, 110b, 110c are overlapping].
Regarding claim 39, Sadek teaches:
the access point receiving control information from at least one wireless station associated to the access point, the control information indicating the timing of at least one of the one or more beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”; In para 0032 – 0034, measured beacon timings of all APs are sent to each AP, the limitations is met since all APs send beacons on a different channel].
Regarding claim 40, Sadek teaches:
wherein the control information received from the at least one wireless station indicates a detected time overlap of the beacons transmitted by the access point with at least one beacons received by the wireless station [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”; In para 0032 – 0034, measured beacon timings of all APs are sent to each AP and STA’s; “APs may rely on STA assistance to determine the periodic time intervals” – para 0034; it noted that measurement reports sent to AP provide detected time overlap].
Regarding claim 42, Sadek teaches
based on the control information received from the at least one wireless station, the access point adapting scheduling of wireless transmissions between the at least one wireless station and the access point to avoid time overlap of the wireless transmissions and the beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels [paragraph [0033]: "Integration of information at the AP may take into account one or both the timing and signal strength of the measurements from the different STAs through giving higher weight to beacons received at higher signal strength because it indicates a nearby and potentially higher interfering BSS"; paragraph [0034]: "Based on the information received from STA 120a, AP 110b may determine the periodic time interval….it may be desirable for the periodic time intervals for the APs 110a, 110b, 110c to be different because the Aps 110a, 110b, 110c are overlapping”; a given AP will avoid time overlap of beacons transmitted by other APs which would inherently be on a different channel i.e. one or more second channels].
Regarding claim 44, Sadek teaches:
the access point receiving control information from one or more further access points operating on the one or more second wireless channels [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”; In para 0032 – 0034, measured beacon timings of all APs are sent to each AP and STA’s; “APs may rely on STA assistance to determine the periodic time intervals” – para 0034];
wherein said coordinating of the timing is based on the control information received from the one or more further access points [paragraph [0033]: "Integration of information at the AP may take into account one or both the timing and signal strength of the measurements from the different STAs through giving higher weight to beacons received at higher signal strength because it indicates a nearby and potentially higher interfering BSS"; paragraph [0034]: "Based on the information received from STA 120a, AP 110b may determine the periodic time interval….it may be desirable for the periodic time intervals for the APs 110a, 110b, 110c to be different because the Aps 110a, 110b, 110c are overlapping”].
Regarding claim 49, Sadek discloses an access point for a wireless communication system, the access point comprising at
least one processor and a memory containing program code executable by the at least one processor, the program code being configured such that execution of the program code by the at least one processor causes the access point to [see rejection of claim 38; it is noted that the AP’s include a memory, processor and program code to perform the steps – also see para 0049]:
periodically transmit beacons on a first wireless channel [see rejection of claim 38];
estimate a timing of one or more beacons periodically transmitted on one or more second wireless channels different from the first wireless channel [see rejection of claim 38]; and
based on the estimated timing, coordinate the timing of transmitting the beacons on the first wireless channel with the timing of transmitting the beacons on the one or more second wireless channels, wherein said coordinating of the timing reduces a time overlap of the beacons transmitted on the first wireless channel with the beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels [see rejection of claim 38] .
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) 31, 32, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al (US 9,524,628) in view Sadek (US 2014/0226505; cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 31, Omer teaches a wireless station that receives Beacon information from multiple access points, but fails to teach the wireless station providing control information to the access point, the control information indicating a timing of at least one of the received beacons.
In analogous art, Sadek teaches a mobile station (wireless station) that reports beacon timings to all the access points [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”] for the benefit of giving higher weight to beacons received at a higher signal strength because it indicates a nearby and potentially higher interfering BSS [see para 0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skilled in the art at the invention was filed to modify Omer to include the claimed the wireless station providing control information to the access point, the control information indicating a timing of at least one of the received beacons to optimize bandwidth and resource selection and minimize interference [para 0027].
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Omer in view of Sadek teaches the claimed limitation, where Sadek teaches
the wireless station detecting a time overlap of at least one of the received beacons with a beacon transmitted by the access point, wherein the control information indicates the detected time overlap [see “overlapping beacons” in para 0033 and providing the measurement information to the Aps 0032 – 0034; it is further noted in para 0039 – 0040, interference measurements which include beacon overlapping information is feedback to the AP]. The motivation to combine is provided in claim 31 from which 32 depends.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Omer in view of Sadek teaches the claimed limitation, where Sadek teaches
the wireless station reporting the measurements to the access point [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”].
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omer et al (US 9,524,628) in view Sadek (US 2014/0226505; cited by applicant), and further in view of Cherian et al (US 2014/0140208; cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Omer in view of Sadek fails to teach:
wherein the control information indicates a target beacon transmission time of the at least one of the received beacons.
In analogous art, Cherian teaches “after receiving the beacon report 506, AP1 may adjust its beacon timing….to create a new target beacon transmission time for the AP1” [see para 0097; it is noted that the target beacon transmission time is include in the received report i.e. which the basis of the new target beacon transmission time]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Omer in view of Sadek to include the control information indicates a target beacon transmission time of the least one of the received beacons to minimize data conflicts and reduce medium occupancy [see para 0097].
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Omer in view of Sadek and further in view of Cherian teaches the claimed limitation, wherein Cherian teaches in response to sending the control information, the wireless station receiving beacons from the access point with modified timing “ [see para 0100 “In another example, AP1 may transmit an adjustment notification 508 directly to the AP2 and all other APs on the network, such as via a backhaul communication (e.g., using the Internet or a public switched telephone network (PSTN)). In this example, the AP1 may also transmit an adjustment notification 508 to the STAs on the network so that all APs and STAs are notified that an adjustment of the beacon timing of AP1 will occur”]. The wireless station equates to the STA. Please note the motivation for combining was provided in claim 33.
Claim(s) 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadek (US 2014/0226505; cited by applicant) in view of Cherian et al (US 2014/0140208; cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 41, Sadek fails to teach:
wherein the control information received from the at least one wireless station indicates a target beacon transmission time of at least one beacon received by the wireless station.
In analogous art, Cherian teaches “after receiving the beacon report 506, AP1 may adjust its beacon timing….to create a new target beacon transmission time for the AP1” [see para 0097; it is noted that the target beacon transmission time is include in the received report i.e. which the basis of the new target beacon transmission time which is based on at least one beacon received by the wireless station]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sadek at the time the invention was filed to include the control information received from the at least one wireless station indicates a target beacon transmission time of at least one beacon received by the wireless station as taught by Cherian to minimize data conflicts and reduce medium occupancy [see para 0097].
Regarding claim 43, Sadek fails to teach:
the access point coordinating the timing by providing control information to one or more further access points operating on the one or more second wireless channels.
However, in analogous art, Cherian teaches the claimed the access point coordinating the timing by providing control information to one or more further access points operating on the one or more second wireless channels [see para 0097 “As another example, a given AP acting as a centralized coordinator may learn about the beacon timing of other APs within the network and may prompt the other APs to adjust their beacon timing. For example, AP1 may transmit an adjustment request 510 signal to the AP2 prompting the AP2 to adjust its beacon timing. The new target beacon transmission times indicated or requested by the adjustment request 510 may lead to better distribution of the beacon transmission across the network]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Sadek and time the invention was filed to include the control information received from the at least one wireless station indicates a target beacon transmission time of at least one beacon received by the wireless station as taught by Cherian to minimize data conflicts and reduce medium occupancy [see para 0097].
Claim(s) 45, 46 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadek (US 2014/0226505; cited by applicant) in view of Omer et al (US 9,524,628).
Regarding claim 45, Sadek fails to disclose:
the access point receiving one or more reports from at least one wireless station associated to the access point, the one or more reports indicating results of measurements for sensing one or more human beings or animals in an environment of the at least one wireless station, the measurements being based on at least some of the beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels.
In analogous art, Omer teaches the access point receiving one or more reports from at least one wireless station associated to the access point, the one or more reports indicating results of measurements for sensing one or more human beings or animals in an environment of the at least one wireless station, the measurements being based on at least some of the beacons transmitted on the one or more second wireless channels [see col 5 lines 47 – 50 “..the motion detector device 104 processes the wireless signals from the wireless access points 102A, 102B to detect motion”…. It is noted the wireless motion detect device equates the wireless station and first and second wireless channels are communication channels from wireless access points 102A and 102B respectively; see col 6 lines 56 – 57 “for example, the object can be a person… an animal…”]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to modify Sadek to including the teaching of Omer to enable a system to securely monitor when movement of an object is detected or security has been breached [see col 9 lines 30 – 40].
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Sadek in view of Omer teaches the claimed limitations, wherein Sadek teaches wherein the measurements are further based on at least some of the beacons transmitted on the first wireless channel [para 0033 – 0034 – see “The STAs may report beacon timing and measuring strength to the AP”; In para 0032 – 0034, measured beacon timings of all APs are sent to each AP and STA’s; “APs may rely on STA assistance to determine the periodic time intervals” – para 0034; it noted that measurement reports sent to AP provide detected time overlap].
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Sadek in view of Omer teaches the claimed limitation, wherein Omer teaches based on the reported results, the access point evaluating presence, location, and/or movement of the one or more human beings or animals in the environment of the wireless station [see col 5 lines 47 – 50 “..the motion detector device 104 processes the wireless signals from the wireless access points 102A, 102B to detect motion”…. It is noted the wireless motion detect device equates the wireless station and first and second wireless channels are communication channels from wireless access points 102A and 102B respectively; see col 6 lines 56 – 57 “for example, the object can be a person… an animal…”]. It should be noted the motivation to combine was provided in claim 45.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK SRIVASTAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-7304. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 - 7304.
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.
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.
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449