DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 9/15/2025 claims 1, 10, 17 and 19 are amended, claim 11 is cancelled and claim 21 is added as a new claim. Claims 1- 10, 12- 21 are pending for examinations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed in the remarks on 9/15/2025 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. Examiner has incorporated new reference Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021. Cui teaches in [0038] regarding controller oversee/manage aspects of resource congestion and/or resource availability, potentially as a function of load experienced in the system 200a. …; now refer to [0051] about ... controller may generate one or more determinations/decisions regarding one or more resources based on the capabilities of block 208b and/or the analysis and/or the predictions of block 214b. For example, as part of block 220b the controller may identify for one or more CDs (i.e. communication devices): one or more access technologies to utilize, power levels (transmission power levels, receiver sensitivity levels, etc.) to utilize, frequency bands to utilize, timeslots to utilize, modulation/demodulation schemes to utilize, encoding/decoding schemes to utilize, encryption/decryption schemes to utilize, multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) schemes to utilize, applications to be utilized/executed, etc. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more ad-hoc networks to generate/create and/or disband/destroy. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more CDs to function as a repeater or signal booster on behalf of one or more other CDs and/or other devices. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more measurements to be performed by a given CD to enhance/augment/supplement the information that is available to the controller; further see [0052].. the controller may issue/provide one or more instructions/directives/directions to one or more CDs. The directives of block 226b may facilitate the determinations/decisions of block 220b. For example, the directives of block 226b may cause the one or more CDs to implement the determinations/decisions of block 220b. In some embodiments, a first CD that receives a first directive may forward the first directive to one or more other CDs and/or may provide a second directive that is based on and/or at least partially different from the first directive to one or more other CDs as part of block 226b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Sandip teaches a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (see [0006], AT as a device here), the operations comprising:
obtaining first data indicative of first activities occurring in a first network, wherein the first network is operative in accordance with at least Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi); analyzing the first data to determine that resources of the first network are congested in an amount that is greater than a first threshold, resulting in a first determination; and based on the first determination, initiating at least one action, wherein the at least one action reduces the congestion of the resources of the first network (see [0006].. A device, e.g., an access terminal (AT), may evaluate a channel congestion metric during discrete intervals of a scan procedure. Based on the channel congestion metric, the device decides whether to exit the scanning procedure on the current channel (e.g., without waiting a minimum or maximum dwell time) and switch to a scan procedure on a second channel. For example, the AT may broadcast a probe request on the current channel and, at the same time, begin to determine (or accumulate information associated with) the channel congestion metric. The channel congestion metric may provide an indication of whether a probe response is expected. The indication may be based on total wireless local area network (WLAN) congestion, e.g., all detected uplink and downlink Wi-Fi transmissions. The intervals may be measured from the time the probe request is sent and, at a first interval, the device may determine if the channel congestion metric has satisfied a threshold, e.g., at, above, or below a threshold level. If the channel congestion metric satisfies the threshold, this may indicate that no probe response is expected and therefore the AT may exit the scan procedure on the current channel. If the channel congestion metric does not satisfy the threshold, this may indicate that a probe response may be expected. As a result, the AT may continue the scan procedure on the current channel, e.g., continue determining the channel congestion metric during a second interval (i.e. described features relate to techniques for an adaptive dwell time for channel scanning that provides for a reduced total active scan time which helps reducing congestion).
But Sandip is silent about wherein the initiating of the at least one action modifies settings pertaining to communication parameters that are used, the communication parameters including: a transmission power level, a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band, and a timeslot; however Cui teaches in [0038] regarding controller oversee/manage aspects of resource congestion and/or resource availability, potentially as a function of load experienced in the system 200a. …; now refer to [0051] about ... controller may generate one or more determinations/decisions regarding one or more resources based on the capabilities of block 208b and/or the analysis and/or the predictions of block 214b. For example, as part of block 220b the controller may identify for one or more CDs (i.e. communication devices): one or more access technologies to utilize, power levels (transmission power levels, receiver sensitivity levels, etc.) to utilize, frequency bands to utilize, timeslots to utilize, modulation/demodulation schemes to utilize, encoding/decoding schemes to utilize, encryption/decryption schemes to utilize, multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) schemes to utilize, applications to be utilized/executed, etc. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more ad-hoc networks to generate/create and/or disband/destroy. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more CDs to function as a repeater or signal booster on behalf of one or more other CDs and/or other devices. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more measurements to be performed by a given CD to enhance/augment/supplement the information that is available to the controller; further see [0052].. the controller may issue/provide one or more instructions/directives/directions to one or more CDs. The directives of block 226b may facilitate the determinations/decisions of block 220b. For example, the directives of block 226b may cause the one or more CDs to implement the determinations/decisions of block 220b. In some embodiments, a first CD that receives a first directive may forward the first directive to one or more other CDs and/or may provide a second directive that is based on and/or at least partially different from the first directive to one or more other CDs as part of block 226b. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Sandip to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the initiating of the at least one action modifies settings pertaining to communication parameters that are used, the communication parameters including: a transmission power level, a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band, and a timeslot; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 5, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, wherein the initiating of the at least one action comprises: delaying or disabling a use of a probe, delaying or disabling non-essential management, delaying or disabling enhanced services, or any combination thereof, for at least a period of time; Sandip already discussed above in claim 1.. the indication may be based on total wireless local area network (WLAN) congestion, e.g., all detected uplink and downlink Wi-Fi transmissions. The intervals may be measured from the time the probe request is sent and, at a first interval, the device may determine if the channel congestion metric has satisfied a threshold, e.g., at, above, or below a threshold level. If the channel congestion metric satisfies the threshold, this may indicate that no probe response is expected and therefore the AT may exit the scan procedure on the current channel. If the channel congestion metric does not satisfy the threshold, this may indicate that a probe response may be expected. As a result, the AT may continue the scan procedure on the current channel, e.g., continue determining the channel congestion metric during a second interval (i.e. described features relate to techniques for an adaptive dwell time for channel scanning that provides for a reduced total active scan time which helps reducing congestion; further see Cui [0038].
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 further in view of Jakes et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0413143 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip fails to state about wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to the initiating of the at least one action, obtaining second data indicative of second activities occurring in the first network; analyzing the second data to determine that the resources of the first network are congested in an amount that is less than a second threshold, resulting in a second determination; and based on the second determination, revoking at least a portion of the at least one action; however Jakes states in Fig. 2 #202 , 204 and [0039- 0040] and [0035, 0037] about … If the motion of the mobile device 100 is below the predetermined motion threshold, the switching control unit 114 can automatically switch back to the WLAN primary data connection mode via the WLAN communication device 106...; see [0036]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Jakes with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to the initiating of the at least one action, obtaining second data indicative of second activities occurring in the first network; analyzing the second data to determine that the resources of the first network are congested in an amount that is less than a second threshold, resulting in a second determination; and based on the second determination, revoking at least a portion of the at least one action; greater way resources ca be utilized/managed in the communication system.
Claim(s) 3- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Jakes et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0413143 A1) and in further view of Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0015603 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sandip in view of Cui, Jakes teaches as per claim 2, but Sandip is silent about wherein the second threshold is different from the first threshold; however Lee states in [0035] about the first RAT is associated with an LTE network, the second RAT is associated with an NR network, and the modified second RAT threshold value is a modified NR threshold value; further see [0104] about LTE threshold as a 20dB and NR threshold (i.e. second threshold) as a16dB; further see [0129]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Sandip in view of Jakes to make system more standardized.
Regarding claim 4, Sandip in view of Cui, Jakes and Lee teaches as per claim 3, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold; already described above see claim 3 Lee.
Claim(s) 6- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Wei et al. (WO 2015/156925 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip is silent about wherein the initiating of the at least one action comprises generating and sending a message to a communication device advising of the congestion; however Wei states in [0070] about generating and sending a message to a communication device advising of the congestion. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wei with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more reliable. Having a mechanism wherein the initiating of the at least one action comprises generating and sending a message to a communication device advising of the congestion; greater way reliable communication can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 7, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 6, but Sandip is silent about wherein the sending of the message comprises broadcasting the message, and wherein the message includes an incentive directed to a user of the communication device for refraining from using the resources; Wei see [0070] refraining. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Wei with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more reliable. Having a mechanism wherein the sending of the message comprises broadcasting the message, and wherein the message includes an incentive directed to a user of the communication device for refraining from using the resources; greater way reliable communication can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 8- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Wei et al. (WO 2015/156925 A2) and in further view of Henderson et al. (US Pat. No. 9872210 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Sandip in view of Cui, Wei teaches as per claim 6, but Sandip is silent about, wherein the message includes a recommendation for a user of the communication device to switch from a first communication service or a first application to a second communication service or a second application, the second communication service being different from the first communication service and the second application being different from the first application; however Henderson states in lines 53- 67 of col. 13 to lines 1- 16 of col. 14 about switching from one source access point to target access point. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Henderson with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui, Wei to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the message includes a recommendation for a user of the communication device to switch from a first communication service or a first application to a second communication service or a second application, the second communication service being different from the first communication service and the second application being different from the first application; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 9, Sandip in view of Cui, Wei teaches as per claim 6, but Sandip is silent about wherein the device includes a first access point and the communication device includes a second access point that is operative in a second network that is different from the first network; however Henderson states in lines 53- 67 of col. 13 to lines 1- 16 of col. 14 about switching from one source access point to target access point. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Henderson with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui, Wei to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the device includes a first access point and the communication device includes a second access point that is operative in a second network that is different from the first network; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 and in further view of Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0014332 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, wherein prior to the initiating of the at least one action a communication device of a first responder obtains a first quality of service via the resources in an amount that is less than a second threshold; already described in claim 1’s citations….The indication may be based on total wireless local area network (WLAN) congestion, e.g., all detected uplink and downlink Wi-Fi transmissions. The intervals may be measured from the time the probe request is sent and, at a first interval, the device may determine if the channel congestion metric has satisfied a threshold, e.g., at, above, or below a threshold level. If the channel congestion metric satisfies the threshold, this may indicate that no probe response is expected and therefore the AT may exit the scan procedure on the current channel. If the channel congestion metric does not satisfy the threshold, this may indicate that a probe response may be expected. As a result, the AT may continue the scan procedure on the current channel, e.g., continue determining the channel congestion metric during a second interval; but Sandip is silent about wherein subsequent to the initiating of the at least one action the communication device of the first responder obtains a second quality of service via the resources in an amount that is greater than the second threshold; however Smith teaches in Fig. 6 regarding step 208 and [0090].. As the emergency situation continues to unfold and additional emergency response personnel appear on the scene, additional network resources may be required to support emergency personnel communication. Accordingly, the partitioned and dedicated network resource may be monitored to determine if additional network resources should be partitioned and allocated to TPA. This may be accomplished by comparing the call volume on the partitioned and dedicated network resource to a predefined maximum or minimum threshold, block 208…;now refer to [0093]… When the level of use of the partitioned and dedicated network resource drops below a predefined minimum, the MSC 104 may begin to re-allocate network resources back to general public usage, block 212. Network resources may be automatically re-allocated channel by channel, incrementally reducing the resources allocated to emergency personnel usage, returning to normal operations in a stepwise fashion…; now refer to step 213, 208 and 209- 211 see [0095] Once the cellular communication channel has been re-allocated for general public usage, the MSC 104 determines if there are any more network resources that are currently partitioned and dedicated for emergency personnel communication, block 213. If additional network resources are currently partitioned and dedicated for emergency personnel communication, the MSC 104 returns to block 208 to determine whether the emergency situation is escalating or de-escalating…; now refer to [0090].. If call volume exceeds a predefined maximum (indicating an escalating situation), for example 25% usage of the partitioned and dedicated network resources in the cell site/sector, additional dedicated network resources may be partitioned to TPA operation, block 211, to allow emergency response personnel to communicate. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein subsequent to the initiating of the at least one action the communication device of the first responder obtains a second quality of service via the resources in an amount that is greater than the second threshold; greater way standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Cabrera (US Pub. No. 2013/0329559 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip is silent about wherein the initiating of the at least one action is further based on a user-generated input; however Cabrera states in [0061] about … Congestion control function 26 chooses a service to pre-empt based on, for example, the location of the service on the list, a priority associated with a service, a user's input/request for pre-emption of a specific service, etc…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Cabrera with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein the initiating of the at least one action is further based on a user-generated input; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Yadav (US Pub. No. 2017/0238278 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip is silent about wherein the operations further comprise: based on the initiating of the at least one action, determining that a client communication device has engaged in a first attempt to connect to services facilitated via the resources; determining that the first attempt is unsuccessful; and based on the determining that the first attempt is unsuccessful, forcing the client communication device to wait for an expiration of a first timeout before being given an opportunity to connect to the services via a second attempt; however Yadav states in Fig. 2 and [0031, 0044- 0045] about … first and second attempt associated with a timers…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Yadav with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein the operations further comprise: based on the initiating of the at least one action, determining that a client communication device has engaged in a first attempt to connect to services facilitated via the resources; determining that the first attempt is unsuccessful; and based on the determining that the first attempt is unsuccessful, forcing the client communication device to wait for an expiration of a first timeout before being given an opportunity to connect to the services via a second attempt; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Yadav (US Pub. No. 2017/0238278 A1) and in further view of Benveniste et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0095911 A1), hereafter Ben.
Regarding claim 14, Sandip in view of Cui and Yadav teaches as per claim 13, about subsequent to the expiration of the first timeout, determining that the client communication device has engaged in the second attempt to connect to services facilitated via the resources; determining that the second attempt is unsuccessful; and based on the determining that the second attempt is unsuccessful, forcing the client communication device to wait for an expiration of a second timeout before being given an opportunity to connect to the services via a third attempt, the second timeout being larger than the first timeout; Yadav states in Fig. 2 and [0031, 0044- 0045] about … first and second attempt associated with a timers…. But Sandip is silent about timeout being larger than first one; however Ben states in [0023] about .. If the first try to access the network by a station fails, then the CSMA/CA protocol computes a new CW by doubling the current value of CW as CW2=CW1 times 2.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Ben with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui and Yadav to make system more standardized.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Malladi (US Pub. No. 2022/0141825 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip is silent about wherein the operations further comprise: analyzing the first data to determine that interference in the first network is greater than a second threshold, resulting in a second determination, wherein the initiating of the at least one action is further based on the second determination; however Malladi states in [0138] about … wherein making a channel change decision (405) based on an interference level on a first channel being used by the first client device includes, when said interference level is below or equal to the first interference level threshold: comparing (410) said interference level to a second interference level threshold (L2); determining (420) that the first AP should not change its channel when the interference level is below the second threshold; and determining (421) that the first AP should change its channel when the interference level is above the second threshold (and below the first threshold since this step is performed after the comparison in step 406 to the first higher threshold). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Malladi with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein the operations further comprise: analyzing the first data to determine that interference in the first network is greater than a second threshold, resulting in a second determination, wherein the initiating of the at least one action is further based on the second determination; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homchadhari et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0055254 A1), hereafter Sandip in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021 in view of Zerumsky et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0385733 A1), hereafter Daniel.
Regarding claim 16, Sandip in view of Cui teaches as per claim 1, but Sandip is silent about wherein the initiating of the at least one action comprises reducing a rate of a beacon signal from a first rate to a second rate that is less than the first rate; however Daniel states in [abstract, 0002, 0030] and Fig. 8 about … enable or disable the SSID on additional channels, increase or decrease its beacon interval, and/or increase or decrease its beacon physical layer (PHY) data rate in order to provide probing computing devices with greater or less access to the SSID based on the network activity.. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Daniel with the teachings of Sandip in view of Cui to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein the initiating of the at least one action comprises reducing a rate of a beacon signal from a first rate to a second rate that is less than the first rate; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Claim(s) 17- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zerumsky et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0385733 A1), hereafter Daniel in view of Cui et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0409965 A1), published in Dec 2021.
Regarding claim 17, Daniel teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a capacity of resources of a communication system, resulting in a first identification, wherein the communication system utilizes an unlicensed communication spectrum; identifying an amount of the resources that are actively consumed in a provisioning of communication services, resulting in a second identification; based on the first identification and the second identification, determining that the communication system is congested in an amount that is greater than a first threshold (In context with Abstract and [0019] pls refer to Fig. 8, steps 810 and 820- 830 about … AP may receive data indicating high network congestion associated with one or more SSIDs. The data may indicate network congestion associated with the one or more SSIDs. For example, the network congestion may be associated with a channel utilization rate. In another example, the network congestion may be associated with an indication of a quantity of probe requests associated with an SSID of the one or more SSIDs. At step 820, the AP may determine, based on the data and one or more criteria, one or more configuration changes associated with the one or more SSIDs comprising at least a change to a state associated with an SSID of the one or more SSIDs, wherein the change comprises enabled or disabled. If the data indicates high network congestion (e.g., a channel utilization greater than 60% i.e. threshold and first identification can be knowing channel utilization (i.e. capability) and second identification knowing that its greater than 60% ), then the SSID generating the high network congestion may have its state changed to enabled to provide greater availability for the SSID generating the high network congestion. If the data indicates low network congestion (e.g., a channel utilization less than 20% or even no utilization), then the SSID associated with the low network congestion may have its state changed to disabled to provide less availability for the SSID generating the low network congestion. The one or more criteria may comprise one or more SSID configuration criteria. The one or more SSID configuration criteria may comprise at least one of: an SSID priority, a type of Wi-Fi network or a Wi-Fi standard. The Wi-Fi standard may be associated with a level of network performance; see [0036- 0037]); and
based on the determining, initiating at least one action to reduce the amount of the resources that are actively consumed from a first level to a second level that is less than the first level (already discussed above in step 830).
But Daniel is silent about wherein the initiating of the at least one action modifies settings pertaining to communication parameters that are used, the communication parameters including: a transmission power level, a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band, and a timeslot; however Cui teaches in [0038] regarding controller oversee/manage aspects of resource congestion and/or resource availability, potentially as a function of load experienced in the system 200a. …; now refer to [0051] about ... controller may generate one or more determinations/decisions regarding one or more resources based on the capabilities of block 208b and/or the analysis and/or the predictions of block 214b. For example, as part of block 220b the controller may identify for one or more CDs (i.e. communication devices): one or more access technologies to utilize, power levels (transmission power levels, receiver sensitivity levels, etc.) to utilize, frequency bands to utilize, timeslots to utilize, modulation/demodulation schemes to utilize, encoding/decoding schemes to utilize, encryption/decryption schemes to utilize, multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) schemes to utilize, applications to be utilized/executed, etc. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more ad-hoc networks to generate/create and/or disband/destroy. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more CDs to function as a repeater or signal booster on behalf of one or more other CDs and/or other devices. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more measurements to be performed by a given CD to enhance/augment/supplement the information that is available to the controller; further see [0052].. the controller may issue/provide one or more instructions/directives/directions to one or more CDs. The directives of block 226b may facilitate the determinations/decisions of block 220b. For example, the directives of block 226b may cause the one or more CDs to implement the determinations/decisions of block 220b. In some embodiments, a first CD that receives a first directive may forward the first directive to one or more other CDs and/or may provide a second directive that is based on and/or at least partially different from the first directive to one or more other CDs as part of block 226b. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Daniel to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the initiating of the at least one action modifies settings pertaining to communication parameters that are used, the communication parameters including: a transmission power level, a receiver sensitivity level, a frequency band, and a timeslot; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 18, Daniel in view of Cui teaches as per claim 17, wherein the unlicensed communication spectrum has a nominal operating frequency of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz or 6 GHz; Daniel already discussed above see [0018- 0019] 2.4/5 GHz.
Regarding claim 19, Daniel teaches a method, comprising: commanding, by a processing system including a processor, an access point of a communication network to administer access to communication services by client devices via an unlicensed spectrum in accordance with a first configuration (see [abstract, 0018- 0019 and Fig. 8]);
determining, by the processing system and subsequent to the commanding, that resources are consumed in an amount that is greater than a first threshold, resulting in a first determination; and based on the first determination, causing, by the processing system, the access point to administer access to the communication services by the client devices via the unlicensed spectrum in accordance with a second configuration that is different from the first configuration (In context with Abstract and [0019] pls refer to Fig. 8, steps 810 and 820- 830 about … AP may receive data indicating high network congestion associated with one or more SSIDs. The data may indicate network congestion associated with the one or more SSIDs. For example, the network congestion may be associated with a channel utilization rate. In another example, the network congestion may be associated with an indication of a quantity of probe requests associated with an SSID of the one or more SSIDs. At step 820, the AP may determine, based on the data and one or more criteria, one or more configuration changes associated with the one or more SSIDs comprising at least a change to a state associated with an SSID of the one or more SSIDs, wherein the change comprises enabled or disabled. If the data indicates high network congestion (e.g., a channel utilization greater than 60% i.e. threshold), then the SSID generating the high network congestion may have its state changed to enabled to provide greater availability for the SSID generating the high network congestion. If the data indicates low network congestion (e.g., a channel utilization less than 20% or even no utilization), then the SSID associated with the low network congestion may have its state changed to disabled to provide less availability for the SSID generating the low network congestion. The one or more criteria may comprise one or more SSID configuration criteria. The one or more SSID configuration criteria may comprise at least one of: an SSID priority, a type of Wi-Fi network or a Wi-Fi standard. The Wi-Fi standard may be associated with a level of network performance; see [0036- 0037]; further see [0038] about the AP may send, to one or more computing devices, one or more messages indicating the one or one or more configuration changes. The one or more messages may comprise a beacon at transmitted at a changed beacon interval, a beacon transmitted at a changed beacon PHY data rate, or an indication that an SSID of one or more SSIDs has been enabled or disabled (i.e. here second configuration can be its beacon interval decreased, its state changed to enabled, or a beacon physical layer data rate decreased to provide greater availability for the SSID generating the high network congestion; refer to [0030].).
But Daniel is silent about wherein the second configuration is different from the first configuration in terms of: a transmission power level that is used, a receiver sensitivity level that is used, a frequency band that is used, and a timeslot that is used; however Cui teaches in [0038] regarding controller oversee/manage aspects of resource congestion and/or resource availability, potentially as a function of load experienced in the system 200a. …; now refer to [0051] about ... controller may generate one or more determinations/decisions regarding one or more resources based on the capabilities of block 208b and/or the analysis and/or the predictions of block 214b. For example, as part of block 220b the controller may identify for one or more CDs (i.e. communication devices): one or more access technologies to utilize, power levels (transmission power levels, receiver sensitivity levels, etc.) to utilize, frequency bands to utilize, timeslots to utilize, modulation/demodulation schemes to utilize, encoding/decoding schemes to utilize, encryption/decryption schemes to utilize, multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) schemes to utilize, applications to be utilized/executed, etc. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more ad-hoc networks to generate/create and/or disband/destroy. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more CDs to function as a repeater or signal booster on behalf of one or more other CDs and/or other devices. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more measurements to be performed by a given CD to enhance/augment/supplement the information that is available to the controller; further see [0052].. the controller may issue/provide one or more instructions/directives/directions to one or more CDs. The directives of block 226b may facilitate the determinations/decisions of block 220b. For example, the directives of block 226b may cause the one or more CDs to implement the determinations/decisions of block 220b. In some embodiments, a first CD that receives a first directive may forward the first directive to one or more other CDs and/or may provide a second directive that is based on and/or at least partially different from the first directive to one or more other CDs as part of block 226b. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Daniel to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein the second configuration is different from the first configuration in terms of: a transmission power level that is used, a receiver sensitivity level that is used, a frequency band that is used, and a timeslot that is used; greater way resources can be managed/utilized in the communication system.
Regarding claim 20, Daniel in view of Cui teaches as per claim 19, further Daniel teaches comprising:
determining, by the processing system and subsequent to the causing, that the resources are consumed in an amount that is less than the first threshold, resulting in a second determination; already described above see [0037]…if the data indicates low network congestion (e.g., a channel utilization less than 20% or even no utilization), then the SSID associated with the low network congestion may have its state changed to disabled to provide less availability for the SSID generating the low network congestion….; and
based on the second determination, causing, by the processing system, the access point to administer access to the communication services by the client devices via the unlicensed spectrum in accordance with a third configuration that is different from the second configuration; already described above see [0037] and [0030] third configuration can be its beacon interval increased, its state changed to disabled, or a beacon physical layer data rate increased to provide less availability for the SSID generating the low network congestion; refer to [0030].
Regarding claim 21, Daniel in view of Cui teaches as per claim 19, wherein the second configuration is different from the first configuration in terms of: a modulation scheme that is used, a demodulation scheme that is used, an encryption scheme that is used, and a decryption scheme that is used; Cui see [0051] about ... controller may generate one or more determinations/decisions regarding one or more resources based on the capabilities of block 208b and/or the analysis and/or the predictions of block 214b. For example, as part of block 220b the controller may identify for one or more CDs (i.e. communication devices): one or more access technologies to utilize, power levels (transmission power levels, receiver sensitivity levels, etc.) to utilize, frequency bands to utilize, timeslots to utilize, modulation/demodulation schemes to utilize, encoding/decoding schemes to utilize, encryption/decryption schemes to utilize, multiple-input multiple output (MIMO) schemes to utilize, applications to be utilized/executed, etc. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more ad-hoc networks to generate/create and/or disband/destroy. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more CDs to function as a repeater or signal booster on behalf of one or more other CDs and/or other devices. As part of block 220b, the controller may identify one or more measurements to be performed by a given CD to enhance/augment/supplement the information that is available to the controller…
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 form for considered prior arts for record.
Reference Shetty et al. (US Pat. No. 8798088 B1) teaches in lines 24- 42 of col. 3 regarding .. In another embodiment, updating the one or more TCA (i.e. traffic channel assignment) parameters may involve (a) if the determined usage level is high, then adjusting the one or more TCA parameters such that expected usage of the traffic-channel resource for the TCA process is reduced; and (b) if the determined usage level is low, then adjusting the one or more TCA parameters such that expected usage of the traffic-channel resource for the TCA process is increased. In yet another embodiment, updating the one or more TCA parameters may comprise (a) if the determined usage level is high and the TCA parameter is greater than a minimum threshold, then adjusting the TCA parameter such that expected usage of the traffic-channel resource for the TCA process is reduced; (b) if the determined usage level is low and the TCA parameter is less than a maximum threshold, then adjusting the TCA parameter such that expected usage of the traffic-channel resource for the TCA process is increased; and (c) otherwise, refraining from adjusting the one or more TCA parameters.
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 PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479