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
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the RSSI value to cost table stored in memory.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 28 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. Applicant has amended the independent claim to specify a table indicating RSSI mapped to cost thus changing the scope of the invention. An updated search was conducted and a new reference is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28-47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim 28 recites “RSSI value to cost table stored in the memory.” The specification fails to disclose this subject matter. There is no indication in the specification of a table with “RSSI value” and a “cost value” that is linked to said RSSI value. Examiner has searched all the tables disclosed in the specification. Figure 7 shows RSSI values linked to client devices and corresponding to a Steer Count, but there is no entry for a mapped cost value. The specification discloses “best path to the GW is calculated based on the best AP-to-AP costs that are directly retrieved from a mesh routing table” however this routing table is not disclosed as including the RSSI value for that corresponding cost. There is disclosed a cost function, “Here, the cost function is assumed to be a partial linear function of signal strength” but a cost function is considered by Examiner to be a mathematical equation with inputs to determine a cost, different from a table in which specific RSSI values map to specific costs. Thus, a table with cost values is considered to support the claim language. The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 28 or for reciting the same amended feature.
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.
Claims 28-30, 33-39, 42-44, 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ganu et al. (“Ganu”) (US 20140059218 A1) in view of Lampe et al. (“Lampe”) (WO 2014029870 A1) and Ramachandran et al. (“Ramachandran”) (US 20080107075 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Ganu teaches:
An access point [Figure 1 100a] operating on a wireless network, the access point comprising: a memory having computer readable instructions stored therein; and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions, wherein execution of the computer readable instructions causes the AP to [Figure 1 110, 115, 125]:
determine whether one or more client devices is connected to the AP [¶0036, aggregating device hosted on AP 100a, obtain reports, ¶0038, Figure 3, showing clients that are and are not connected to this AP, “indicator whether the AP is associated with the corresponding client device”];
for each client device of a set of one or more client devices that are not associated with the AP [¶0036, aggregating device hosted on AP 100a, obtain reports, ¶0038, Figure 3, showing reports with information collected for clients that are and are not connected to this AP, “indicator whether the AP is associated with the corresponding client device”]:
obtain packet data between the client device and an AP of one or more further APs operating within the wireless network [¶0019 “the report process aggregates and organizes the client information provided from the client reports on a per client basis,” ¶0034, “the AP 100a sends a client report 185 to the report process 190 hosted by the aggregating device (e.g. controller 140). […] the client report 185 contains at least a list of client MAC addresses 220 and the associated signal strength measurements 230 (e.g., SNRs or equivalents such as RSSI), and may also include additional information such as timestamp 240, channel 250 and/or band 260. The client report 185 may also contain AP specific information 270 associated with the AP uploading that particular client report 185” and ¶0035, process performed by AP 100b, wherein ¶0036 “the report process may be hosted by one of the APs 100a-100c”, the client report 185 corresponding to packet data], wherein the packet data comprises rate information associated with communication between the client device and the AP of the one or more further APs [¶0034, packet data comprises RSSI information, corresponding to “rate information” as in claim 33, rate information comprises “signal strength”], and determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value between the client device and the AP of the one or more further APs based on the rate information [¶0034-36, RSSI determined from RSSI information]; and collect the RSSI values for the packets communicated between the one or more client devices and the APs [¶0035, process repeated for each AP and further clients as in ¶0034], wherein the one or more collected RSSI values are used to determine a communication pathway between a client device and an AP for the one or more client devices [¶0041, determine candidate radio or pathway for the client].
Ganu teaches obtaining packet client report but does not teach this is a packet communicated back to the client from the further AP.
Lampe teaches the client report may be communicated between the further AP and the client thus being a packet communicated between the client device and an AP of one or more further APs [page 16, “AP2 and AP3 can send, via a wired link with API, a probe response which contains the RSSI value to API, and after receiving the probe response from AP2 and AP3 , API forwards the received probe response to the client via a wireless link with the client. Step 604, after receiving all the probe responses returned by the candidate AP” and further page 17 “the client selects AP2 as the target AP according to the RSSI value returned by the candidate AP” thus showing client reports are returned to client, therefore obtaining a client report at e.g. another AP would be obtaining a packet communicated between further AP and client].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the packet data comprising RSSI information as in Ganu is also a packet communicated to the client. Ganu teaches obtaining a client report, and it would have been obvious to further specify that the AP in Ganu providing the client report as in ¶0034-36 sends this to the further client as in Lampe who teaches this allows the client to obtain information on the target AP by comparing RSSI see page 16-17.
Ganu teaches steering devices and using a table with RSSI value but does not teach RSSI to cost table.
Ramachandran teaches determine a communication pathway between a client device and an AP for the one or more client devices based on a RSSI value to cost table stored in the memory [¶0028, BS uses reported RSSI between UEs and RSs, converts RSSI to link metric using path link cost management block 215 and storing in association table corresponding to claimed table, and ¶0078-80 determine RSs to hand off to based on path cost, wherein ¶0070 the path metric is the path cost. Examiner notes the specification does not expressly teach an RSSI to cost table, but rather RSSI to cost function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the RSSI to cost table as in Ramachandran. Ganu teaches RSSI in a table that is used to determine optimal paths and thus specifying a mapping to cost as in Ramachandran would have been obvious in order to determine target stations for the UE that avoid unsuitable stations see ¶0052-53 of Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 29, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the AP is further configured to initiate a connection between a client device and an AP based on the collected RSSI value for said client device [Ganu ¶0048 operate to influence device to switch to another AP, and see claim 1, “causing the client device to wirelessly connect to a second network device of the plurality of network devices in lieu of the first network device”].
Regarding claim 30, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the AP is configured to obtain the packet for a predetermined time duration at predetermined time intervals [Ganu ¶0034, obtain packet at predetermined time interval before the next report is obtained, thus obtained for duration until next update of report is received].
Regarding claim 33, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the rate information comprises any of signal strength, a rate of a packet last transmitted from a further AP to the client device, or a rate of a received packet last received at the further AP from the client device [Ganu [¶0034, packet data comprises RSSI information, corresponding to “rate information” as in claim 33, rate information comprises “signal strength”].
Regarding claim 34, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the AP is configured to obtain the packet by: determining whether the packet is obtained from one or more client devices that belong to a first service set identifier (SSID) [Ganu ¶0034, packet received i.e. beacon report associated with BSSID including first BSSID]; and storing the RSSI value associated with the packet together with a timestamp, if the packet is obtained from the one or more client devices that belong to the first SSID, wherein the timestamp designates a time when the RSSI value was obtained [Ganu ¶0034 includes timestamp and is stored at aggregating device ¶0038-39 Figure 2, ¶0039 also teaching signal strength timestamp see 240 in Figure 2 corresponding to RSSI acquisition as the RSSI carried in report that includes the RSSI during RSSI determination].
Regarding claim 35, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the AP is further configured to infer a RSSI for a packet between the client device and an AP of one or more further APs [Ganu ¶0036-38, signal strength and other parameters indicated by other APs, data may be inferred as in ¶0033 as the data is not expressly measured but is indicated in reports, the claim not expressly defining the step of inferring data].
Regarding claim 36, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 35, wherein a received packet is communicated at a first frequency and the AP is configured to determine the RSSI at the first frequency and infer the frequency at a second frequency [Ganu ¶0036-38, RSSI determined and inferred at frequencies including as in ¶0033 2.4 GHz (First frequency) and 5 GHz (second frequency) band indicated in report Figure 2 260].
Regarding claim 37, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 36 wherein the AP is further configured to infer the RSSI when the first frequency and the second frequency are 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, respectively [Ganu ¶0033 RSSI determined / inferred for 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, wherein movements between bands further determined ¶0070].
Regarding claim 38, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the one or more collected RSSI values are filtered based on a time threshold [Ganu ¶0042, filter recent RSSI values].
Regarding claim 39, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 38, wherein the AP is configured to filter the one or more collected RSSI values based on the time threshold by filtering out RSSI values collected at a time exceeding the time threshold [Ganu ¶0042 “This signal strength weighting may be optionally time-weighted so that only recent signal strength values, within a predetermined period, are used and values older in time are ignored.”].
Regarding claim 42, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the wireless network is a wireless local area network (WLAN) [Ganu ¶0032].
Regarding claim 43, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 42, wherein the WLAN operates based on IEEE 802.11 standard [Ganu ¶0030].
Regarding claim 44, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein available communication routes enable the one or more client devices associated with the AP to communicate with at least one of a gateway, a wireless router, a satellite receiver, a video recorder set-up box and a network- attached storage mesh access point [¶0021 Ganu teaches various devices communicable to client includes router].
Regarding claim 46-47, see similar rejection for claim 28 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding step.
Claims 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ganu et al. (“Ganu”) (US 20140059218 A1) in view of Lampe et al. (“Lampe”) (WO 2014029870 A1), Ramachandran et al. (“Ramachandran”) (US 20080107075 A1) and Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”) (US 20150257014 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 30.
Ganu teaches collecting RSSI but not a threshold number.
Ahmed teaches wherein the access point is configured to collect the RSSI value by obtaining one or more further packets until a number of collected RSSI values exceeds a predetermined value [¶0021 “collecting a threshold number of data points from at least one user device located in the area, wherein each of the data points includes a plurality of Received Signal Strength Indicators (RSSI) captured from the access points positioned in the area” at ¶0037 network device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a number of RSSI measurements determined as in Ahmed. Ganu teaches determining RSSI values but not a threshold number of values and it would have been obvious to implement this threshold as in Ahmed to build an effective model of signal propagation ¶0010.
Claims 32, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ganu et al. (“Ganu”) (US 20140059218 A1) in view of Lampe et al. (“Lampe”) (WO 2014029870 A1), Ramachandran et al. (“Ramachandran”) (US 20080107075 A1), and Lu (US 20080291846 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28.
Ganu teaches access points but not mesh.
Lu teaches wherein the wireless network is a mesh network, and the one or more further APs are one or more mesh access points [¶0032, Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the access point of Ganu is a mesh access point as in Lu who teaches ¶003 mesh access points are less expensive to deploy.
Regarding claim 45, Ganu teaches:
A wireless local area network (WLAN) comprising:
a plurality of access points, each access point (AP) including a memory having computer readable instructions stored therein and a processor, wherein execution of the computer readable instructions causes each of the plurality APs [Figure 1, APs 100a-100c, wherein aggregating device hosted on AP 100a ¶0036] [¶0036, aggregating device hosted on AP 100a, obtain reports, ¶0038, Figure 3, showing clients that are and are not connected to this AP, “indicator whether the AP is associated with the corresponding client device”];
for each client device of a set of one or more client devices that are not associated with the AP [¶0036, aggregating device hosted on AP 100a, obtain reports, ¶0038, Figure 3, showing reports with information collected for clients that are and are not connected to this AP, “indicator whether the AP is associated with the corresponding client device”]:
obtain packet data between the client device and an AP of one or more further APs operating within the wireless network [¶0019 “the report process aggregates and organizes the client information provided from the client reports on a per client basis,” ¶0034, “the AP 100a sends a client report 185 to the report process 190 hosted by the aggregating device (e.g. controller 140). As an example, this may occur periodically, such as every "q" seconds (q.gtoreq.1) for example. Of course, the client report 185 may be transmitted in an aperiodic manner, where the transmission may be triggered by one or more events, such as an update or addition to the client table 200, or a combination of time and events. As an illustrative example, the client report 185 contains at least a list of client MAC addresses 220 and the associated signal strength measurements 230 (e.g., SNRs or equivalents such as RSSI), and may also include additional information such as timestamp 240, channel 250 and/or band 260. The client report 185 may also contain AP specific information 270 associated with the AP uploading that particular client report 185” and ¶0035, process performed by AP 100b, wherein ¶0036 aggregating device hosted on AP 100a, the client report 185 corresponding to packet], wherein the packet comprises rate information associated with communication between the client device and the AP of the one or more further APs [¶0034, packet data comprises RSSI information, corresponding to “rate information” as in claim 33, rate information comprises “signal strength”], and determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value between the client device and the AP of the one or more further APs based on the rate information [¶0034-36, RSSI determined from RSSI information]; and collect the RSSI values for the packets communicated between the one or more client devices and the APs [¶0035, process repeated for each AP and further clients as in ¶0034], wherein the one or more collected RSSI values are used to determine a communication pathway between a client device and an AP for the one or more client devices [¶0041, determine candidate radio or pathway for the client].
Ganu teaches obtaining packet client report but does not teach this is a packet communicated back to the client from the further AP.
Lampe teaches the client report may be communicated between the further AP and the client thus being a packet communicated between the client device and an AP of one or more further APs [page 16, “AP2 and AP3 can send, via a wired link with API, a probe response which contains the RSSI value to API, and after receiving the probe response from AP2 and AP3 , API forwards the received probe response to the client via a wireless link with the client. Step 604, after receiving all the probe responses returned by the candidate AP” and further page 17 “the client selects AP2 as the target AP according to the RSSI value returned by the candidate AP” thus showing client reports are returned to client].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the packet data comprising RSSI information as in Ganu is also a packet communicated to the client. Ganu teaches obtaining a client report, and it would have been obvious to further specify that the AP in Ganu providing the client report as in ¶0034-36 sends this to the further client as in Lampe who teaches this allows the client to obtain information on the target AP by comparing RSSI see page 16-17.
Ganu teaches steering devices and using a table with RSSI value but does not teach RSSI to cost table.
Ramachandran teaches determine a communication pathway between a client device and an AP for the one or more client devices based on a RSSI value to cost table stored in the memory [¶0028, BS uses reported RSSI between UEs and RSs, converts RSSI to link metric using path link cost management block 215 and storing in association table corresponding to claimed table, and ¶0078-80 determine RSs to hand off to based on path cost, wherein ¶0070 the path metric is the path cost. Examiner notes the specification does not expressly teach an RSSI to cost table, but rather RSSI to cost function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the RSSI to cost table as in Ramachandran. Ganu teaches RSSI in a table that is used to determine optimal paths and thus specifying a mapping to cost as in Ramachandran would have been obvious in order to determine target stations for the UE that avoid unsuitable stations see ¶0052-53 of Ramachandran.
Ganu teaches access points but not mesh.
Lu teaches wherein the wireless network is a mesh network, and the one or more further APs are one or more mesh access points [¶0032, Figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the access point of Ganu is a mesh access point as in Lu who teaches ¶003 mesh access points are less expensive to deploy.
Claims 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ganu et al. (“Ganu”) (US 20140059218 A1) in view of Lampe et al. (“Lampe”) (WO 2014029870 A1), Ramachandran et al. (“Ramachandran”) (US 20080107075 A1) and Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 20110201369 A1), .
Regarding claim 40, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the execution of the computer readable instructions causes the AP to determine a RSSI value between one or more further APs and the client device using the one or more collected RSSI values [Ganu ¶0034-38, RSSI values determined / calculated for signals between client and neighbor APs].
Ganu teaches determining RSSI values but does not teach a mean.
Kim teaches wherein the execution of the computer readable instructions causes the AP to calculate a mean RSSI value between one or more further APs and the client device using the one or more collected RSSI values [¶0067 “the BS determines an average CINR or an average RSSI and a CINR standard deviation or an RSSI standard deviation with respect to the BS group of the same location (i.e., the BSs belonging to the sector antenna BS set among the neighbor BSs of the NBL) and removes the neighbor BSs with poor reception performance based on the determined value”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the access point determines a mean of the RSSIs as in Kim in order to determine the BSs to remove as candidates as in ¶0067.
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ganu et al. (“Ganu”) (US 20140059218 A1) in view of Lampe et al. (“Lampe”) (WO 2014029870 A1), Ramachandran et al. (“Ramachandran”) (US 20080107075 A1) and Schmidt et al. (“Schmidt”) (US 20150245358 A1, effective filing date provisional application 61943077 filed Feb. 21, 2014).
Regarding claim 41, Ganu-Lampe-Ramachandran teaches:
The access point of claim 28, wherein the one or more collected RSSI values are used to determine the communication pathway by determining highest transmission rate between an AP operating on the wireless network and the client device [Ganu, ¶0066-67, AP may also determine data rate information transition client to AP with maximum data rate].
Ganu teaches using data rates but not converting signal strength to data rate.
Schmidt teaches converting the RSSI values into transmission rates [¶0277-281, convert RSSI to DL data rate].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the access point determines a rate from the RSSI. Ganu teaches determining rate information and it would have been obvious to specify determining this from RSSI values as in Schmidt to predict throughput and avoid prediction error ¶0003.
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 JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478