DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 11/19/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Rejections under §112 of Claims 1, 7 and 11, as amended, are withdrawn. Rejections under § 101 of Claims 1, 7, and 11, as amended, are withdrawn. Claim 4 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 11/19/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 4, 7 and 11 under 35 USC. 101 is persuasive and the rejection was withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Applicant’s argument that “it is clear for those skilled in the art that the ‘scanning’ recited in amended claim 1 means that a wireless AP may scan a wireless channel of a wireless device associated with the wireless AP, wherein the association between the wireless AP and the wireless device is recorded in a wireless AP list” – See Resp.,11:¶1 is unpersuasive because first, “association” has a specific meaning in the art – See, e.g., Pekarske et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0208538, describing passive and active scanning at [¶0023] and showing the process of STA association with an AP in Fig. 1, therefore an AP would not “scan” a wireless channel of an already associated wireless device in order to record the device; the AP already knows each associated device (i.e., already authenticated the device and assigned an IP address to the device), and second, as known in the art, scanning is performed by an unassociated wireless device (STA) to discover APs (BSS) to join – See, e.g., §§ 6.3.3-4, IEEE 802.11, "ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E), pp.317-321, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960.
That is not to say that APs do not perform “scanning”: for example, an AP may discover interfering APs by scanning active devices channels during intervals when the wireless devices are silent – See, e.g., Abeysekera et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0289142, at [¶0010] (“it is necessary for an access point that supports an IEEE802.11 wireless LAN (hereinafter referred to as an access point, which is indicated as AP in the drawings) to determine a frequency channel on which the wireless LAN access point is to be operated among frequency channels that can be handled by the LAN access point itself when forming a wireless LAN cell (BSS: Basic Service Set). Further, in order to reduce interference, it is necessary to determine a transmission output value of the wireless LAN access point itself when another wireless LAN cell using the same or adjacent frequency channels exists within a range that electric waves of the wireless LAN access point itself reach”). However, Applicant explained that Amended Claims 1 and 11 require “wireless access point(s) to scan for the wireless devices” – Resp.,10: ¶2 and the Specification does not say more. Therefore, by using the plain meaning of the term “scanning” in view of the whole claim and with no special definition disclosed in the Specification, a person of ordinary skills in the art would reasonably interpret the scanning to obtain “wireless devices capable of communicating with the first/second wireless access point” as determining “an estimated degree of performance an AP is to provide to a client device . . . based on an interaction between a client device and an AP . . . when a client device has not already been associated with an AP,” i.e., “performance that would have been provided from the AP to the client device ( e.g., had the client device been associated with the AP)” as described by Tellado et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0383048 (hereinafter Tellado), at [¶0024], therefore distinguishing “scanning” for wireless devices capable of communicating with the AP from assigning an AP to “serving” certain wireless devices, whereby “the term ‘serving’ refers to an agreement (by a client device and an AP) to exchange security credentials such as DHCP packets and/or data packets, in addition to exchanging a sample packet” – See id. In sum, “scanning” within the meaning of the present disclosure is reasonably anticipated by Tellado, making Applicant’s argument moot.
Applicant’s argument that “Jeon does not teach or suggest that the determining of the AP with lesser load is determined by ‘maximum number of connected users - current number of connected users’” – See Resp., 13:¶2 is unpersuasive because Jeon, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0250932 (hereinafter Jeon) explicitly teaches that “the group assignor 120 may determine an assigning order” and “may assign a user to a group having lesser load (the number of connected users or the amount of traffic) based on real-time information such as the number of connected users and/or the amount of traffic of an AP” – See [¶0060] after the “group manager 110 of the management server 10 acquires AP device information on all the APs” including “the maximum numbers of connected users” – See [¶0058], as well as the currently connected users per each AP, as shown in Fig. 7B, whereby “Maximum Number of Connected Users” is specific to each type of AP (e.g. from manufacturing) – See [¶0089], therefore making obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art calculating the remaining AP quota as (Maximum Number of Connected Users - current number of connected users) – See MPEP § 2141.03(I) (stating: “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive or moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Amended Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Amended Claims 1 and 11, first, each claim recites the limitations “a first wireless access point list” and “a second wireless access point list” as two distinguishable lists. However, the Specification only discloses “a wireless access point list” that initially “may include all wireless access points 200 of the system 10” – See [¶0030], i.e., the list is not created based on which wireless access points are serving a certain wireless device but for the APs serving any wireless device in the system. Even though the Specification teaches that the server knows “the K number of wireless access points 200 scanned to the selected wireless device 300” – See [¶0052], there is no disclosure of storing the list of these K access points for any device: on the one hand, the Specification only teaches that “the server 100 may store a wireless access point list recording the wireless access points 200 that may serve the wireless devices 300” (emphasis added), i.e., one list of all APs serving any one or more devices – See [¶0030]; on the other hand, “the server 100 may reset K to an initial value of two” – See [¶0058], i.e., it is not even possible to have a list with only one access point, as the claimed second wireless access point list may be. Furthermore, although the Specification discloses “subsets”–not lists– these subsets are of wireless devices served by one AP rather than of APs serving one device – See, e.g., [¶¶0028-29]. Therefore, the first wireless access point list and the second wireless access point list limitations are not sufficiently described in the Specification.
Second, each claim recites the feature “deleting the first wireless access point from the second wireless access point list after assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point.” This requirement raises two issues: (1) the first wireless device is already served by the first wireless access point, as required by the limitation “a first wireless access point list recording wireless access points serving the first wireless device wherein the first wireless access point list records the first wireless access point first wireless access point,” and although the steps of a method can be performed in any order except an order is required, here, the list precedes the operations of “scanning” because scanning is required to be “based on the first wireless access point list”; (2) the Specification only discloses that “the server 100 may delete the wireless access point 200 with a remaining quota of zero from the wireless access point list” – See [¶0058], specifically verifying this condition after assigning a device to an AP – See [¶0077],[¶0079], and [¶0088], however not required by the claim language. Therefore, this limitation is not supported by sufficient written description.
In sum, Amended Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Amended Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is between “scanning . . . via the first wireless access point” and “the first wireless access point list.”
The claim language requires scanning via the first wireless access point to obtain a set of wireless devices “based on the first wireless access point list,” wherein “the first wireless access point list records the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point” as “wireless access points serving the first wireless device.” Because the scanning operation happens through an indicated first/second wireless access point and the purpose of to obtain a set of wireless devices sensed by that indicated access point, a person of ordinary skills in the art, taking the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, would fail to find a reasonable way to make the “scanning for the first wireless device via the first wireless access point” based on “the first wireless access point list,” or grasp the connection between the obtained “subset of the plurality of wireless devices” and “the first wireless access point list.” Alas, the result of the scanning operation, i.e., a set of wireless devices, and the list of wireless access points, i.e., a set of access points, are two structurally different elements. The same issue arises from the second scanning operation limitation. Therefore, the claim language is incomplete for omitting the structural relationship between the (result of) the scanning operation and the first wireless access list. For the purpose of examination, in a reasonable interpretation of the claim language, “based on the first wireless access point list” will be considered surplusage because the two scanning operations are performed via the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point, respectively, whereby each of these wireless access points are already stored in the first wireless access point list. In addition, each wireless access point list is required to record wireless access points serving the respective wireless device, i.e., each device is already assigned to the APs on the respective wireless access point list. Therefore, the requirement “assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point in response to the first probability being greater than the second probability” is surplusage because the first wireless device is already assigned to the first wireless access point when the stored first wireless access point list comprises the first wireless access point, as required by Amended Claims 1 and 11. Similarly, the limitation “in response to the first wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices being comprised in both the first subset and the second subset” is surplusage because the claim already requires that “the first wireless access point list records the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point” as “serving the first wireless device.” To avoid this logical inconsistency during the examination the term “serving” in the two “storing” limitations of Amended Claims 1 and 11 will be replaces with “capable of communicating with” as further used in these claims, e.g., “storing a first wireless access point list recording wireless access points capable of communicating with the first wireless device wherein the first wireless access point list records the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point,” i.e., not necessarily “assigned” to the respective AP.
Amended Claims 1, 7 and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for using the term “probability” inconsistent with the accepted meaning of a positive quantity less than 1. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Here, the term “probability” in Amended Claims 1 and 11 is used by the claim to mean “probability of assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first/second wireless access point in response to the first wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices being comprised in both the first subset and the second subset," i.e., a conditional probability, "wherein the first/second probability is calculated by dividing a first/second remaining quota of the first wireless access point by the first number of wireless devices.” While the accepted meaning of a calculated probability is “the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes” – See, e.g., Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, i.e., a sub-unitary fraction, the required calculation in Amended Claims 1 and 11 could yield supra-unitary results: For example, if the Maximum number of users accepted by an AP is 6 devices and there are currently two devices connected to that AP, the proposed calculated probability would be the remaining quota (6-2=4) divided by the currently connected devices, 2, i.e., a “probability” of 4/2=2. This example was explained in the first Office action on merits and is repeated infra.
Furthermore, Amended Claim 7 requires “calculating a third probability of assigning the second wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point and a fourth probability of assigning the second wireless device to be served by the second wireless access point in response to the second wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices being comprised in both the first subset and the second subset” but fails to disclose how the third and the forth probability are to be calculated. If the same formula as disclosed in Amended Claim 1 is assumed, although not required, then: (1) the first and the third probabilities would be the same number and the second and the fourth probabilities would also be the same number, including the possibility of obtaining supra-unitary results; and (2) the calculated first total probability being the sum of the first and the second probability is the same as the second total probability which is the sum of the third and the fourth probability, therefore the case where “the first total probability being less than the second total probability,” as required, does not happen, and a person of ordinary skills in the art is left without guidance regarding assigning the two devices to APs after the step of comparing the two total probabilities. Therefore, the term “probability” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In sum, Amended Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 11, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0250932 (hereinafter Jeon) and further in view of Tellado et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0383048 (hereinafter Tellado).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Jeon teaches a system for wireless access point assignment, comprising a plurality of wireless devices; a first wireless access point; a second wireless access point; and a server communicatively coupled to the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point (“a management server 10 may be connected with a plurality of wireless access points (APs) 50 via a network such as the Internet 20” – See [¶0030] and Fig. 1, whereby “[t]he management server 10 manages a network zone 40 consisting of the plurality of APs 50, thereby controlling a mobile terminal 30 to connect to one of the plurality of APs 50” – See [¶0031] and Fig. 9 showing the server 10 connected to the first access point AP1 and the second access point AP2) and configured (“management server 10 may include a group manager 110, a group assignor 120, a quality manager 130, a user authenticator 140, and a storage 150” – See [¶0034] and Fig. 2, whereby “[t]he group manager 110 of the management server 10 acquires AP device information on all the APs” – See [¶0058], “the storage 150 may include data for classifying a plurality of APs into AP groups and managing the AP groups, and data for assigning one of the AP groups to each user and managing the group” as described in Figs. 7A-C – See [¶0045] and “the management server 10 may transmit information on an AP group to which each AP 50 belongs ( e.g., a group ID of a belonging group)” – See [¶0106]; furthermore, there are “various methods for the group manager 110 of the management server 10 to classify APs into a plurality of groups. Thus, in alternative embodiments, the network zone 40 may not be divided into SAs, or APs may not be classified into essential APs and optional APs” – See [¶0072]) to perform:
storing a first wireless access point list recording wireless access points capable of communicating with the first wireless device wherein the first wireless access point list records the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point (“a user management table that can be stored in a management server” – See [¶0073], e.g., as shown in Figs. 7C and 8, “the user management table may have data about a terminal ID . . . of each user” – See [¶0098] and “may further include an item showing a belonging AP group of each user” – See [¶0100], e.g., a first row in user management table corresponds to a wireless device and contains a group of “belonging” APs, i.e., a list of serving APs, because “[a] belonging group denotes an ID of a [AP] group assigned to a user” – See [¶0093] with groups built on coverage areas, “sub-areas (SAs)” – See [¶0062], and “there are at least two currently connectable APs in the AP list of the group” – See [¶0117], therefore the first and the second wireless access point belong to the first list)
storing a second wireless access point list recording wireless access points capable of communicating with the second wireless device, wherein the second wireless access point list also includes the first wireless access point (e.g., a second row in the user management table of Fig. 7C is a second wireless access point list because it contains a belonging group of APs assigned to the second wireless device, whereby the belonging group may be different or the same as the group above, and may also include the first wireless AP because “[o]ne AP may be assigned to at least one AP group as a member” – See [¶0038], e.g., as shown in Fig. 7A, AP5 appears in two lists/groups);
scanning for the first wireless device via the first wireless access point to obtain a first subset of the plurality of wireless devices the APs 50 may be devices that support a wireless local area network (WLAN) according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard” – See [¶0032], i.e., each AP supports scanning procedures in the IEEE 802.11 standard1 – See, e.g., [¶0051] (“The AP scanner 320 may generate a "scanned AP list" by scanning APs to which the mobile terminal 30 can connect”); see also estimating the degree of performance an AP is to provide to a client device taught by Tellado infra);
scanning for the first wireless device via the second wireless access point to obtain a first subset of the plurality of wireless devices
obtaining a first number of wireless devices in the first subset and a second number of wireless devices in the second subset (as shown in Fig. 7B, the AP management table stored in a management server has “data about a service set ID (SSID), AP device information, a MAC address, the number of connected users, and the amount of traffic of each AP” – See [¶0080] whereby “the number of connected users is the number of users who are currently connected to the corresponding AP, that is, the number of mobile terminals” capable of communicating with the first and the second wireless AP, respectively – See [¶0090])
calculating a first probability of assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point and a second probability of assigning the first wireless device to be served by the second wireless access point e.g., “when there are at least two currently connectable APs in the AP list” for the terminal device – See [¶0111]; the calculation is in response to the first wireless device being in both subsets because both the first and the second wireless AP are on the first wireless AP list of APs the first wireless is capable of communicating with, as required and explained supra)
wherein the first probability is calculated by dividing a first remaining quota of the first wireless access point by the first number of wireless devices, and the second probability is calculated by dividing a second remaining quota of the second wireless access point by the second number of wireless devices (when “the AP information may include AP device information, and real-time information such as the number of connected users” – See [¶0104] and the “AP device information may include unique device information on each AP device” – See [¶0082], e.g., “Maximum Number of Connected Users” – See [¶0088], the calculation of the remaining quota becomes “apparent to those skilled in the art . . . without departing from the spirit or scope of the present disclosure” – See [¶0133], e.g., as (Maximum Number of Connected Users - current number of connected users/terminals); furthermore, the calculation of the first and second probabilities is a routine operation2 for a person of ordinary skills in the art using the required information stored by the management server for each AP as shown in Fig. 7B);
assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point in response to the first probability being greater than the second probability (the “network zone management apparatus [is] capable of appropriately distributing a load of a plurality of APs in a network zone in which the APs are installed to overlap,” – See [¶0131], i.e., when a mobile terminal of a user “is scanned” by least two overlapping APs, “the group assignor 120 . . . may assign a user to a group having lesser load (the number of connected users or the amount of traffic) based on real-time information such as the number of connected users and/or the amount of traffic of an AP” – See [¶0060], whereby a lesser load is the same as a greater calculated probability because both quantities rely on a higher remaining quota at the selected AP); and
deleting the first wireless access point from the second wireless access point list after assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point (e.g., in a case where by assigning the first wireless device to the first wireless access point that AP reached Maximum Number of Connected Users, it would be obvious that AP is nolonger a “connectable AP” for lack of capacity, hence it is removed from other devices wireless access point lists; see also “pruning” APs operation taught by Tellado infra ).
In the alternative that Jeon does not explicitly teach the scanning operation based on wireless access points lists recording APs “serving/connectable/capable of communicating with” with the first wireless device and the second wireless device, respectively, i.e., APs to which these devices have not been yet “assigned” (within the meaning of assignment to an AP as understood by one of ordinary skills in the art), Tellado teaches method and system where “areas of coverage provided by two or more APs may be overlapped to provide continuous network connectivity to the client devices” and the “APs of the computing network can be assigned to various types of controllers in order to provide network connectivity to client devices associated with the APs of the computing network” – See [¶0008], whereby “[s]pecifically, the term AP is not intended to be limited to IEEE 802.11-based APs” – See [¶0012]. Tellado further teaches that “even when a client device has not already been associated with an AP, a degree of performance that would have been provided from the AP to the client device (e.g., had the client device been associated with the AP) can be estimated and utilized for further determining which AP . . . to serve the client device” whereby a “degree of performance can be estimated based on an interaction between a client device and an AP,” e.g., a “performance characteristic of a signal received from the client device in return of the sample packet previously sent” by the AP – See [¶0024]. Therefore, Tellado teaches scanning for the first wireless device via the first and second wireless access point to obtain a first and a second subset of the plurality of wireless devices based on the first wireless access point list, because Tellado teaches a method wherein the first and second subsets each comprises wireless devices capable of communicating with the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point, respectively, e.g., when “[a] respective degree of performance being provided to each client device of the client devices 304 may be maintained above a performance threshold, which may be predetermined,” and “may be further adjusted based on the client information and/or a demanding degree of performance of the client device 304” – See [¶0049]. By teaching the predetermined threshold, Tellado teaches how to obtain a first number of wireless devices in the first subset and a second number of wireless devices in the second subset, i.e., each subset comprises those client devices for which the signal received from the client device in return of the sample packet previously sent by the first wireless AP and the second wireless AP, respectively, are above the threshold.
Tellado also teaches deleting the first wireless access point from the second wireless access point list after assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point. First, Tellado teaches that “[s]ubsequent to determining the estimated degree of performance, a subset of the group of APs can be selected to serve a plurality of client devices,” e.g., the first wireless AP is assigned to serve the first wireless device, whereby “the term ‘serving’ refers to an agreement (by a client device and an AP) to exchange security credentials such as DHCP packets and/or data packets, in addition to exchanging a sample packet” – See [¶0024]. Second, Tellado teaches that “a subset of the group of APs may be pruned,” i.e., a wireless AP list may be trimmed by taking out an AP, “responsive to determining that a respective degree of performance is less than a performance threshold” – See [¶0025], e.g., when after assigning the first wireless AP to the first wireless device the first wireless AP becomes overloaded, hence its estimated degree of performance with the second wireless device becomes less than the threshold and consequently this first wireless AP will no longer be part of the subset/list of wireless APs connectable for the second wireless device.
Thus, Jeon and Tellado each teaches a wireless system where a server communicatively coupled with (at least) two wireless access points (APs) obtains through these APs indication of each AP load from connected wireless terminals and controls the APs to measure signal strength of transmission between each AP and a wireless terminal to determine subsets of wireless devices that can be served by each of the APs. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the scanning via each wireless AP to estimate a degree of performance with each client device and identify a subset of devices for which that degree of performance is above a threshold, as taught by Tellado, could have been combined or substituted in for the step of scanning performed by the wireless devices in Jeon because both provide for a determination of which subset of wireless devices are capable of communicating with each of the first and the second wireless access point, respectively. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination/substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the obvious result of allowing scanning of wireless devices via different wireless APs before assigning a wireless device to an AP based on an estimated degree of performance, as taught by Tellado.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jeon in view of Tellado further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
measuring a first signal strength of the first wireless device via the first wireless access point; measuring a second signal strength of the first wireless device via the second wireless access point3 (during the scanning process of an AP channel, a mobile terminal 30 “transmits a request signal to surrounding APs, receives AP signals responding to the request signal” – See [¶0051], and “each mobile terminal 30 may transmit signal levels of APs received while moving in the network zone 40” so that “the management server 10 may acquire information on a service area of each AP from the information” – See Jeon:[¶0041]; “an AP may send a sample packet to a client device (e.g., even when the client device is not associated with the AP) and the estimated degree of performance may be determined based on a performance characteristic of a signal received from the client device in return of the sample packet previously sent” – See Tellado:[¶0024], e.g., each AP measures the signal strength of the first wireless device response – See id.:[¶0021] (“the performance characteristic may include . . . a signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio”)),
comparing the first signal strength and the second signal strength (the “actual degree of performance” may be measured as “an AP has provided to a client device . . . and/or a degree of performance between two . . . APs” – See Tellado:[¶0025], e.g., a server/controller would compare the signal strengths obtained from the two APs; furthermore, “[a]s a demanding degree of performance of a client device . . . dynamically changes . . . the demanding degree of performance may be continuously compared to a performance threshold” – See Tellado:[¶0054], e.g., the first signal strength may be above the threshold and the second less than the threshold) in response to the first probability being equal to the second probability (“a degree of performance (e.g., an estimated degree of performance) an AP is to provide to a client device” is one of the factors in determining which AP serves which device – See Tellado:[¶0024]; in addition “[w]hen there are at least two currently connectable APs in the AP list of the group,” i.e., the probabilities for each AP to serve the wireless device are the same, “the connection manager 310 selects one of the connectable APs” – See Jeon:[¶0117], e.g., it would be obvious to select the one with the highest degree of performance/best connectivity); and
assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point in response to the first signal strength being greater than the second signal strength (the “mobile terminal 30 connects to the selected AP” after the server assigns the user to the AP – See id. and Fig. 11, steps S1113-1114).
Therefore, Amended Claim 2 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 2, Jeon in view of Tellado further teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first signal strength is associated with a received signal strength indicator (“the performance characteristic may include . . . a signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio”) – See Tellado:[¶0021]).
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Regarding Amended Claim 5, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jeon further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to perform: decreasing the first remaining quota of the first wireless access point in response to assigning the first wireless device to be served the first wireless access point (as shown in Fig. 11 of Jeon, “the management server 10 receives AP information from all APs 50 in the network zone 40” including “real-time information such as the number of connected users and the amount of traffic” – See [¶0119], and “when the terminal 30 enters the network zone 40 and makes a connection request” – See [¶0118], “the management server 10 receiving the connection request determines whether the mobile terminal 30 has already been assigned an AP group,” upon determining that “the terminal 30 has not been assigned an AP group . . . group assignor 120 of the management server 10 assigns one of the AP groups to the terminal 30” – See [¶0122], the terminal “performs a connection operation to the selected AP” – See [¶0125], whereby “APs may have received information necessary for authentication among pieces of management information of FIG. 7A to FIG. 7C from the management server 10” – See [¶0126] and “when the user authentication in step S1119 is successful, the AP permits connection of the terminal 30 (step S1121), and the terminal 30 connects to the AP in the network zone 40” – See [¶0127] and Fig. 11; therefore the management server will know, at least at step S1114 if not at the next scanning of the AP when the AP transmits information as in step S1101 that the remaining quota of the first wireless access point, calculated as (Maximum Number of Connected Users - current number of connected users) for the AP decreased by (at least) one).
Therefore, Amended Claim 5 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Regarding Amended Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jeon in view of Tellado further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
calculating a third probability of assigning the second wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point and a fourth probability of assigning the second wireless device to be served by the second wireless access point in response to the second wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices being comprised in both the first subset and the second subset (the same probability calculation as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 applies here because no other formula is required by the claim language, therefore the third probability will be the same as the first probability at the same moment in time because “the AP information may include AP device information, and real-time information such as the number of connected users” – See [¶0104] and the “AP device information may include unique device information on each AP device” – See [¶0082], e.g., “Maximum Number of Connected Users” – See [¶0088], the calculation of the remaining quota becomes (Maximum Number of Connected Users - current number of connected users/terminals), hence the calculated probability will be the remaining quota of the AP divided by the current number of connected users/terminals);
adding the first probability and the second probability to generate a first total probability corresponding to the first wireless device and adding the third probability and the fourth probability to generate a second total probability corresponding to the second wireless device 4 (this routine calculation only shows the total load across the combined two access points, as taught by Jeon, specifically when the APs are of the same type/manufacturer, hence support the same Maximum Number of Connected Users, hence the limitation is obvious over the AP Management Table in Fig. 7B of Jeon);
comparing the first total probability corresponding to the first wireless device and the second total probability corresponding to a second wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (this routine operation is required in only in a scenario where there would be differences between the first total probability and the second total probability; however, here the first and the third probabilities would be the same, e.g., when they are calculated for the first wireless AP before assigning the first wireless device to it, and the second and the fourth probabilities would also be the same number because they refer to the second wireless AP; and the calculated first total probability being the sum of the first and the second probability is the same as the second total probability which is the sum of the third and the fourth probability; hence the comparing operation is a routine mental operation any person of ordinary skills in the art is capable of performing in mind);
assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point prior to assigning the second wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point or the second wireless access point in response to the first total probability being less than the second total probability (“the group assignor 120 may determine an assigning order of a user to a group having lesser load (the number of connected users or the amount of traffic) based on real-time information such as the number of connected users and/or the amount of traffic of an AP” – See [¶0060], hence the first total probability being less than the second total probability indicates a “lesser load” in the aggregate of APs for the first device, when assigning the first device, e.g., in a case where the probability is directly related to the current load of the APs, as explained in Regarding Claim 1, supra. Therefore, the first device is assigned to the first AP, e.g., because, in addition to the first total probability being less than the second total probability, the load of the first AP is less than the load of the second AP; then the second device is assigned to the AP which still has the lesser load, which may be the second AP after the first device is assigned to the first AP).
Regarding Amended Claim 8, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Jeon further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
assigning the first wireless device to the first wireless access point to generate the assignment result in response to the first wireless device being in the first subset but not in the second subset (e.g., “[t]here are three APs in SA5, and it is assumed that one (AP9) of them is an essential AP, and the others (AP7 and AP8) are optional APs. Such a situation may occur, for example, when AP9 can cover SA5 but AP7 or AP8 alone cannot cover SA5” – See [¶0066] and Fig. 5, then “a mobile terminal 30 of a user who enters the network zone 40 [through SA5] may scan surrounding connectable APs” – See [¶0107] may discover only AP9 due to terminal location in SA5 being covered only by AP9, and “may transmit a connection request to the management server 10 through” AP9 “in step S907” – See id., and Fig. 9; and “the management server 10 receiving the connection request may determine whether the mobile terminal 30 has already been assigned an AP group,” e.g., through the scanning process explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 – See also [¶0108] and Fig. 9, wherein AP1-3 are AP7, 8, and 9 and AP9 is the first wireless access point and AP7-8 are each or together the second access point; in response to AP9 being the only AP scanned for the wireless device powered up in SA5, the management server determines that the first wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices is not comprised the second subset of devices, i.e., those scanned to AP7 or 8, e.g., by looking at the User Management table in Fig. 7C, and assigns the first wireless device to AP9, i.e., the first wireless access point).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Regarding Amended Claim 11, Jeon in view of Tellado teaches a method for wireless access point assignment (“there is provided a method of connecting a mobile terminal to a wireless AP by an apparatus for managing a network zone having a plurality of wireless APs” – See Jeon:[¶0013]) comprising: the steps performed by the wireless system of Amended Claim 1, recited with the same language. Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado, Amended Claim 11 is also obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
In sum, Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 11, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado.
Claims 6, and 9-10, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Tellado as applied to Amended Claim 5 and 8 above, and further in view of Hongo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0353320 (hereinafter Hongo).
Regarding Amended Claim 6, dependent from Amended Claim 5, Jeon in view of Tellado further teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
determining whether the first remaining quota of the first wireless access point is zero (e.g., “Referring to FIG. 7B, an AP management table may have data about a service set ID (SSID), AP device information, a MAC address, the number of connected users” – See Jeon:[¶0080], including the “Maximum Number of Connected Users” – See Jeon:[¶0088], therefore determining that the current number of connected users for AP1 equals the Maximum Number of Connected Users field stored in the AP Device Information in the AP management table of Fig. 7B is a mental operation obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art);
determining whether an unassigned third wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices is comprised in the second subset in response to determining that the first remaining quota is zero (e.g., after determining the first remaining quota of the first wireless access point is zero, as explained supra, it is obvious that there will be no scanning for wireless devices through the first access AP because the “degree of performance that would have been provided from the AP to the client device ( e.g., had the client device been associated with the AP)” would be under the determined threshold, e.g., zero – See Tellado:[¶0024], therefore the determining whether an unassigned third wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices is connectable to an AP would happen, e.g., using the Tellado scanning method, through the second wireless AP, i.e., the determination is whether the third device belongs to the second subset).
Tellado teaches third wireless device not being comprised in the second subset (“a first degree of performance provided to a first client device may be different than a second degree of performance provided to a second client device when the first client device and the second client device are in different locations” – See [¶0041], i.e., it is possible that the first wireless device is in the second subset but a third device is not because the third device is in a different coverage zone, e.g., when “the mobile terminal 30 outside the network zone 40 may transmit a connection request to the management server 10” – See Jeon:[¶0121]).
Jeon in view of Tellado does not teach outputting an alert message in response to the third wireless device not being comprised in the second subset.
Hongo teaches that in the art, “a method is known in which a wireless LAN controller that controls the AP monitors the congestion situation of each AP, coupling by multiple terminals to the AP that is in congestion is released, and thus a load on the AP that is in congestion is alleviated” – See [¶0006], whereby the congestion level at an AP is determined based on “pieces of transfer quality information, such as . . . the number of coupling terminals” – See [¶0075], e.g., “in a case where the congestion level is expressed in terms of the number of coupling terminals, the congestion value is set to 30 or more” – See [¶0077], i.e., congestion is directly related to the current number of terminals connected to the AP, that is the load of the AP, including when the maximum capacity of a AP is reached. Hongo further teaches in Fig. 26 “an example of a system configuration of a wireless communication network system 200” including “the multiple APs 1, the terminal 2 that performs coupling to any one of the multiple APs 1 and performs communication, and a server 3 that generally manages the multiple APs 1” wherein “the server 3 performs the processing that is performed by each of the AP control unit 107 and the coupling destination determination unit 108” shown in Fig. 6 – See [¶0276]. Hongo further teaches that a new terminal cannot be coupled to a congested AP (“the first-phase processing of the terminal coupling control processing . . . starts when the congestion level determination unit 105 notifies the AP control unit 107 [e.g., the server] of the detection of the congestion in the utilization channel for the terminal wireless communication IF 101” – See [¶0102] and “the AP control unit 107 instructs each of the beacon control unit 111 and the probe response control unit 110 to stop the beacon transmission and the transmission of the probe response. Accordingly, a coupling from a new terminal is not made” – See [¶0103]), therefore if the first wireless AP has the first quota at zero, the third terminal can not be assigned to it even when the strength of the received signal would indicate otherwise, e.g., “when the pieces of measurement terminal information from all the APs 1, of which the received electromagnetic wave strengths are recorded in the neighboring AP management table 133 are received” – See [¶0105].
Hongo further teaches an alert message in response to the third wireless device not being comprised in the second subset (in general, “each AP 1 transmits the congestion level to the server 3 with a given period,” and “notifies the server 3 of the congestion detection” – See [¶0277], therefore an alert is raised when the third terminal is in the vicinity of the first wireless AP and the AP is congested; next “the AP control unit 107 determines whether or not the neighboring AP 1 that has the measurement terminal information indicating that at least one terminal 2 has received an electromagnetic wave strength higher than the threshold is present” – See [¶0106] and “multiple terminals 2 may be selected as the coupling destination switching targets,” hence un-congesting the first wireless AP and allowing the third device to connect – See [¶0108] and Fig. 9).
Thus, Jeon in view of Tellado and Hongo each teaches a wireless system where a server communicatively coupled with (at least) two wireless access points (APs) makes determination regarding assigning connectable APs to devices based on signal strength measurements. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the alerting to congestion of an AP in Hongo with the zero quota detection in Jeon in view Tellado to issue an alert message in response to the second wireless device not being comprised in the second subset of devices scanned by neighbors APs of the first congested AP but being closer to that AP. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the obvious result of allowing alerting to an unassigned terminal so that an AP scanning the unassigned device can redirect it to an uncongested AP or can switch other terminals to neighboring APs to increase its available quota, as taught by Hongo.
Therefore, Amended Claim 6 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado and further in view of Hongo.
Regarding Amended Claim 9, dependent from Amended Claim 8, anticipated by Jeon in view of Tellado further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
determining whether the first remaining quota of the first wireless access point is zero in response to the first wireless device being in the first subset but not in the second subset (e.g., Jeon teaches at step S911 in Fig. 9, “the group assignor 120 may determine . . . a user to a group having lesser load (the number of connected users or the amount of traffic) based on real-time information such as the number of connected users and/or the amount of traffic of an AP” – See [¶0060] and updates the AP Management Table in FIG. 7B with “the total number of current users who have been assigned the corresponding” AP – See [¶0079] to determine a “belonging group” and “connected AP” for each already assigned user/device – See [¶0093] whereby determining the remaining quota of an AP is a routine operation over the AP Management Table in FIG. 7B; in addition, because the first wireless device may “scan” only to AP9 due to terminal location in SA5 being covered only by AP9 and not by AP7 or 8 present in the same service area, and “may transmit a connection request to the management server 10 through” AP9 “in step S907” – See Jeon:[¶0107] and Fig. 9; and “the management server 10 receiving the connection request may determine whether the mobile terminal 30 has already been assigned an AP group,” e.g., through the scanning process explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 – See also [¶0108] and Fig. 9, only AP9 will be evaluated for quota in the AP Management Table of Fig. 7B in response to the first wireless device being in the first subset “scanned” to AP9 but not in the second subset of devices “scanned” to APs 7 and 8) and
assigning the first wireless device to be served by the first wireless access point in response to determining that the first remaining quota is not zero (e.g., because there is remaining quota and AP9 is the only AP “scanning” for the first device as an obvious option).
In addition, or in the alternative, Hongo teaches determining whether a remaining quota of the first wireless access point is zero in response to the first wireless device being in the first subset but not in the second subset (e.g., making the reasonable assumption that a zero quota is a “congestion situation,” in the case where “the terminal #1 selects an AP that has the greatest received electromagnetic wave strength from among the AP #1, the AP#2, and the AP#3 from which the probe responses are received” as in FIG. 1, “the terminal #1 is assumed to be present at a location near the AP #1” – See [¶0047], then “the terminal coupling control processing by the AP” kicks-in, whereby “the APs exchange congestion levels indicating congestion situations with one another, and know the congestion situations mutually,” therefore the AP1 “receives a notification of control information, such as the congestion level, from the AP control unit 107” – from the ”wired interface for communicating with a different AP1,” i.e., the server 3 – See [¶0078], then in response to terminal #1 being “scanned” by AP#1 and not by AP#2 or #3, there is a determination by the control unit whether there is a congestion situation at AP#1, if not there is direct assignment, if yes, some terminals will be switched to other connectable APs – See [¶0108]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 9 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado and further in view of Hongo.
Regarding Amended Claim 10, dependent from Amended Claim 9, Hongo further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the server is further configured to perform:
outputting an alert message in response to determining that the first remaining quota is zero (“In a case where the congestion is detected by the congestion level determination unit 105, the coupling destination determination unit 108 receives the instruction from the AP control unit 107,” e.g., an alert message triggering the “determin[ation of] the coupling destination switching target” at AP#1 – See [¶0083]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 10 is obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado and further in view of Hongo.
In sum, Claims 6, and 9-10, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeon in view of Tellado and further in view of Hongo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Colban et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0131483 as described in the previous Office action;
Shanks et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0206198 discloses systems, methods and apparatuses that generate an interference map based at least on co-channel interference reported in a number of neighbor lists;
Pekarske et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0208538, describing passive and active scanning;
Abeysekera et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0289142 teaches a a wireless communication apparatus that performs setting necessary for a wireless LAN access point constituting a wireless communication network to operate, the wireless communication apparatus including: an information collection unit which collects setting information set in the wireless LAN access point and wireless environment information in the wireless LAN access point; a parameter calculation unit which obtains a parameter to be set for the wireless LAN access point, which is a collection source, based on the collected setting information and the collected wireless environment information; and a parameter setting unit which transmits the obtained parameter to the wireless LAN access point, which is the collection source, over a network and performs setting of the parameter;
Jun et al., Korean Patent Application Publication No. KR20130107774 discloses additional congestion management features to the apparatus and method of Jeon;
IEEE 802.11, "ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E), pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960, in §§ 6.3.3-4, teaches scanning in 802.11 wireless networks.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (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 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 IEEE 802.11, "ISO/IEC/IEEE - International Standard - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Specific requirements for local and metropolitan area networks--Part 11: Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications," in ISO/IEC/IEEE 8802-11:2022(E), pp.1-4382, 26 Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9930960, (hereinafter IEEE 802.11), in §§ 6.3.3-4, teaches scanning in 802.11 wireless networks as “survey of potential BSSs that the STA can later elect to try to join” – See IEEE 802.11:317.
2 While the plain meaning of the term “the number of wireless devices” would be understood by one of ordinary skills in the art as the current number of connected users/devices of each AP, the proposed calculation would challenge the notion of mathematical probabilities which are known to be less or equal with 1. For example, if the Maximum accepted by an AP is 6 devices and there are currently two devices connected to the AP the proposed calculated probability would be the remaining quota (6-2=4) divided by the currently connected devices, 2, i.e., a “probability” of 4/2=2. The Specification intimates that the denominator of the calculated “probability” may be the Maximum Number of Connected Users and not be the current number of connected users at an AP because there, in Table 4, each AP has the same number (4) of connected devices but different remaining quota – See [¶0046]. Because it is more likely that the APs are of the same type/manufacturer, hence have the same Maximum number of supported devices/users characteristic, than it is for each AP to have the same number of currently connected devices/users, the probability calculation would be understood by one of ordinary skills in the art as using the Maximum number of connected users as a denominator and not the current number of connected users, in agreement with obtaining a result between 0. . .1 as a calculated probability.
3 The Specification does not explain how “the server 100 may measure the signal strength of the wireless signals from the wireless devices 300 in the subset via the wireless access points 200,” wherein the signal strength may include a RSSI – See, e.g., Spec., [¶0026]; furthermore, the Specification concedes that a “signal strength (unit: dBm) of the wireless devices 300 [is] measured by the corresponding wireless access points 200” – See id., [¶0027]; Furthermore, although “[t]he server 100 may compare the signal strengths measured by the wireless access points #A and #C scanned to the wireless device #6” – See id., [¶0054], there is no disclosure as to how the server would obtain the measurements from the measuring access points and how the server handles mobility of wireless devices. However, Tellado teaches these features.
4 The Specification discloses an example of total probability calculation – See [¶0046] and Table 4. However, the example imposes the same number of devices (4) connected to each AP and may fail when the remaining quota of at least one AP is 3, a case where the calculated “total probability” would be greater than 1. In addition, a person of ordinary skills in the art would find no reason for a difference between the total probabilities calculated for the first device and for the second device unless they are situated in two different locations such as the first device is “scanned” to both APs while the second device is only scanned to one of the APs. However, in this case, reasonably assuming that the APs are of the same type/manufacturer, the total probability calculated for the first device is higher, not lower, than the total probability calculated for the second device because all probabilities are positive numbers.