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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 5/4/2023 and 8/11/2023 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/20/2023 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US-2023/0180019 hereinafter, Martin).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a computing platform comprising:
a network interface; (Fig. 20 [2014])
at least one processor; (Fig. 20 [2010])
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; (Fig. 20 [2012]) and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to:
receive input data identifying (i) planned infrastructure sites at which to install wireless communication nodes for a wireless mesh network (Page 7 [0076] “the electronic device may provide the design information (operation 216) associated with the design that specifies the wireless network, where the design information includes one or more wireless-network components (such as a number of access points, a type of access point, etc.) and one or more locations of the wireless-network components in the environment”), wherein each planned infrastructure site is associated with a respective wireless communication node to be installed at the planned infrastructure site (Page 7 [0076] “the design information includes one or more wireless-network components (such as a number of access points, a type of access point, etc.) and one or more locations of the wireless-network components in the environment”) and (ii) planned interconnections between the planned infrastructure sites that specify a manner in which the wireless communication nodes of the planned infrastructure sites are to be interconnected together via wireless links; (Page 14 [0141 & 0142] “the predicted communication performance of the design may include a predicted communication performance of a mesh link relative to wired links that may be coupled to one or more access points” and “While the preceding discussion illustrated the installer initiating consideration of a mesh network for backhaul at a particular location, in other embodiments the design alternative may be considered before the installer is on-site”)
receive template data for defining a deployment plan for wireless communication nodes and wireless communication links; (Page 7 [0078] “the design information (operation 320) associated with the design that specifies the wireless network, where the design information includes one or more wireless-network components (such as a number of access points, a type of access point, etc.” and Page 12 [0118] “For example, the electronic device and/or the computer system may use the determined or calculated one or more communication-performance metrics to determine the number and locations of wireless infrastructure associated with the wireless network, such as: a type of access point (and, more generally, a communication network device), a vendor or manufacturer of the access points, a number of access points, their locations, how they are mounted (e.g., on the wall or the ceiling), antenna patterns of the access points, overlap of the coverage associated with the access points, etc. “) and
based at least on the input data (Page 7 [0076] and Page 14 [0141 & 0142] note: specific citation found above) and the template data (Page 7 [0078] and Page 12 [0118]), generate a deployment plan for the planned infrastructure sites (Fig. 3 [318 & 320]) that comprises, for each planned infrastructure site, a respect set of configuration data for the respective wireless communication node to be installed at the planned infrastructure site. (Page 5 [0057], Page 10 [0092], Fig. 10, Page 14 [0142] i.e. quote and Pages 17-18 [0166])
Regarding claim 2, Martin teaches wherein the respective set of configuration data for the respective wireless communication node to be installed at the planned infrastructure site comprises one or more of the following: (i) configuration data identifying quality and type of equipment at the respective communication node (Page 12 [0118] “the electronic device and/or the computer system may use the determined or calculated one or more communication-performance metrics to determine the number and locations of wireless infrastructure associated with the wireless network, such as: a type of access point (and, more generally, a communication network device), a vendor or manufacturer of the access points, a number of access points, their locations, how they are mounted (e.g., on the wall or the ceiling), antenna patterns of the access points, overlap of the coverage associated with the access points, etc”), (ii) configuration data specifying how equipment at the respective wireless communication node is to be interconnected together, (Page 13 [0132] and Pages 14-15 [0143] “ user interface associated with the installation application may indicate the status, such as: 3 of 5 steps have been completed, or the access point can go online (such as RJ-45 not in place, mesh link for now) and there are still pending operation (such as connect cable)”) and (iii) configuration data for operating as part of a given wireless mesh network. (Pages 14-15 [0141-0143])
Regarding claim 4, Martin teaches prior to generating the deployment plan for the planned infrastructure sites, perform one or more validation tests to verify that the input data complies with one or more constraints for the wireless mesh network. (Page 5 [0055-0056] “Using the radio-frequency simulations, computer system 130 may confirm that the design is predicted to achieve (e.g., within the predefined range) the one or more target communication-performance metrics.”)
Regarding claim 8, Martin teaches after generating the deployment plan, transmit, to a client station, a communication related to one or more of the planned infrastructure sites and thereby cause an indication of at least some of the configuration data from the respective sets of configuration data for the one or more planned infrastructure site to be presented at a user interface of the client station. (Pages 14-15 [0143] “a user interface associated with the installation application may indicate the status, such as: 3 of 5 steps have been completed, or the access point can go online (such as RJ-45 not in place, mesh link for now) and there are still pending operation (such as connect cable)”)
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches for a given respective wireless communication node, causing, based at least in part on the respective set of configuration data for the given respective wireless communication node to be installed at the planned infrastructure site, a client station associated with an installer to present guidance for installing the given respective wireless communication node at the planned infrastructure site. (Pages 14-15 [0143])
Regarding claims 14 and 20, the limitations of claims 14 and 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected as being the same reason set forth above in claim 4.
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.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Halvarsson et al. (US-2018/0006927 hereinafter, Halvarsson).
Regarding claim 5, Martin teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the one or more constraints for the wireless mesh network comprises a maximum number of wireless links allowed at a given wireless communication node, wherein performing one or more validation tests to verify that the input data complies with one or more constraints for the wireless mesh network comprises identifying one or more infrastructure sites that exceed the constrained maximum number, and wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer- readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: for each of the identified one or more infrastructure sites, remove one or more of the infrastructure site's planned interconnections; and add or reconfigure one or more other planned interconnections between other infrastructure sites to compensate for the removed infrastructure sites' planned interconnections.
In an analogous art, Halvarsson discloses an enhanced peer discovery in a mesh network (Abstract) that includes wherein the one or more constraints for the wireless mesh network comprises a maximum number of wireless links allowed at a given wireless communication node (Fig. 5 [504, Yes]), wherein performing one or more validation tests to verify that the input data complies with one or more constraints for the wireless mesh network comprises identifying one or more infrastructure sites that exceed the constrained maximum number (Claim 1), and wherein the computing platform further comprises program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing platform is configured to: for each of the identified one or more infrastructure sites, remove one or more of the infrastructure site's planned interconnections; (Fig. 5 [506]) and
add or reconfigure one or more other planned interconnections between other infrastructure sites to compensate for the removed infrastructure sites' planned interconnections. (Fig. 5 [507, 508, 509, N, 510, 509, Y, 506])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Martin after modifying it to incorporate the ability remove a connection when a threshold has been exceeded and to reconfigure the connections to compensate for the removal of Halvarsson since it enables ensuring the mesh network maintains a connection to each device by not removing a unique path to a device. (Halvarsson Pages 4-5 [0088-0090])
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the Examiner was unable to find the combination of claims 1+2+3, 1+6, 1+7, 1+9+10, 1+12, 1+13, 14+17, 14+18, 14+19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646