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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an amendment filed on 03/24/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 13 and 17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, see pages 6-7, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. The amended claims overcome the prior rejections; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami et al. (US 2021/0144567), hereinafter Goswami, in view of Sun et al. (US 8,983,557), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 1, Goswami discloses a method comprising:
collecting, by a device, network data for a time period, the network data corresponding to network activity of at least one connected device on a Wi-Fi network at a location (Goswami, Fig. 5, steps 302-303; [0037]-[0039], [0056]: access points obtain measurements and information (network data) for devices on a Wi-Fi system during a time period for sending to cloud servers (device));
analyzing, by the device, the network data, and determining, based on the analysis, a Quality of Experience (QoE) for the at least one connected device, the QoE comprising information related to an operational status of the Wi-Fi network and information related to an event, caused by the at last one connected device over the Wi-Fi network, occurring on the Wi-Fi network, that is causing the operational status (Goswami, [0004]-[0006], [0049]: computing QoE from the operational data (network data) for the access points and Wi-Fi client devices; [0051]: QoE is used to determine the health (operational status) of the network; [0054]: QoE includes events such as the ratio of possible throughput to needed throughput [which would indicate when there is a high load event], disconnect/re-connect events, etc.);
determining, by the device, an executable operation based on the QoE, the executable operation being configured to be performed via the network to address the event (Goswami, [0048]: optimization outputs include channel and bandwidth (BW) selection, routes and topology, Request to Send/Clear to Send (RTS/CTS) settings, Transmitter (TX) power, clear channel assessment thresholds, client association steering, and band steering; [0049]: QoE is used in the optimization process); and
causing, by the device, execution of the executable operation, the execution causing a modified network configuration of the network such that the operational status of the network is improved (Goswami, [0042]: output of the optimization is used to configure the Wi-Fi system), the modified network configuration being related to application-based network requirements of the at least one connected device (Goswami, [0048]: the inputs to the optimization include the traffic load required by each client; [0042]: “The outputs of the optimization are the operational parameters for the Wi-Fi system … The optimization tries to use the lowest possible channel bandwidth for each link that will support the load required by the various user's applications”).
Goswami does not explicitly disclose via selectively switching off certain radios and reducing the transmit (Tx) and receive (Rx) number of antenna chains for the various radios at the location.
However, Sun discloses determining, by the device, an executable operation based on the QoE, the executable operation being configured to be performed via the network to address the event via selectively switching off certain radios (Sun, col. 5, ln. 36-50: controller (device) implements techniques for reducing power consumption of a multi-antenna transceiver; Fig. 5: discloses ceasing power (executable operation) to component of receive path(s) not of a subset based on current level of performance (QoE); [the “event” = failing to meet power consumption budget and highest reception performance; switching off radios = ceasing power to receive path components]) and reducing the transmit (Tx) and receive (Rx) number of antenna chains for the various radios at the location (Sun, Fig. 5 discloses reducing receive antenna chains by using a subset of receive paths (antenna chains) and ceasing power to others; Fig. 6 discloses reducing transmit antenna chains by ceasing power to one or more transmit paths (antenna chains); [These reductions occur at the transceiver (i.e., location)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goswami and Sun before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method for adjusting network operation based on QoE as taught by Goswami, to include using a known technique for dynamically reducing active transmit and receive paths (antenna chains) based on performance conditions as taught by Sun. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency while maintaining required performance/QoE levels.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Goswami discloses a device comprising: a processor configured to (Goswami, [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Goswami discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions that when executed by a device, perform a method (Goswami, [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Goswami discloses wherein the modified network configuration comprises altered network parameters for the network (Goswami, [0048]: optimization outputs alter parameters such as channel and BW selection, TX power, clear channel assessment thresholds, RTS/CTS settings).
Regarding claim 3, Goswami discloses wherein the modified network configuration comprises altered operation of components providing the network at the location (Goswami, [0048]: optimization outputs include client association steering, band steering, routes and topology [These directly change AP/client operation]).
Regarding claim 4, Goswami discloses further comprising: determining, based on the analysis, metrics corresponding to values of the network data, the metrics providing an indication as to an operational status of at least one parameter and component of the network, wherein the QoE is based on the determined metrics (Goswami, [0052]-[0054]: determining possible throughput and needed throughput; QoE is based on these metrics; [0051]: QoE indicates the health (operational status) of the network).
Regarding claim 5, Goswami discloses further comprising: correlating, based on the analysis, the network data in view of the determined metrics, wherein the QoE is determined based on the correlation (Goswami, [0053]-[0054]: Correlating the needed throughput (determined metrics) with the current throughput (network data). Determining QoE based on the needed throughput [and therefore, the correlation]).
Regarding claim 7, Goswami discloses wherein the event corresponds to at least one of functionality of network connectivity of the at least one connected device and software of at least one access point providing the network to the location (Goswami, [0071]: QoE score is adjusted downward if the AP along the path to which the client is connected has frequent disconnections (event)).
Regarding claim 8, Goswami discloses wherein the network data corresponds to at least one of bandwidth, latency, packet size, transmission power and transmission frequency (Goswami, [0027]: bandwidth).
Regarding claim 9, Goswami discloses wherein the operational status corresponds to at least one of a real-world and digital event (Goswami, [0071]: disconnection frequency (real-world event) affects QoE).
Regarding claim 10, Goswami discloses wherein the event comprises activity on the network causing degradation below network thresholds (Goswami, [0077]: QoE thresholds used for alarms/alerts when devices/APs fall at/below threshold).
Regarding claim 11, Goswami discloses wherein the device is user equipment connected to the network (Goswami, [0055]: troubleshooting a problem through an app on a client device).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Goswami discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the analysis, metrics corresponding to values of the network data, the metrics providing an indication as to an operational status of at least one parameter and component of the network (Goswami, [0052]-[0054]: determining possible throughput and needed throughput (metrics); QoE is based on these metrics; [0051]: QoE indicates the health (operational status) of the network); and
correlate, based on the analysis, the network data in view of the determined metrics, wherein the QoE is determined based on the correlation (Goswami, [0053]-[0054]: Correlating the needed throughput (determined metrics) with the current throughput (network data). Determining QoE based on the needed throughput [and therefore, the correlation]).
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 2, 3 and 16, respectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami in view of Sun, further in view of McFarland et al. (US 2020/0387204), hereinafter McFarland.
Regarding claim 6, Goswami and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the event corresponds to functionality of hardware components of at least one access point providing the network to the location.
However, McFarland discloses wherein the event corresponds to functionality of hardware components of at least one access point providing the network to the location (McFarland, [0031], [0109]: detecting when radio chips in access points are nearing overheating and altering their operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goswami, Sun and McFarland before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method that determines QoE based on the operational data of access points and Wi-Fi client devices as taught by Goswami and Sun, to include determining the temperature associated with the access points, as taught by McFarland. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the QoE score by including the potential for the APs to overheat as this could degrade performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami in view of Sun, further in view of Zaphir (US 2022/0330062).
Regarding claim 12, Goswami and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the device is an access point device.
However, Zaphir discloses wherein the device is an access point device (Zaphir, [0091]: system 200 is an AP; Fig. 3A, [0093], [0160]: system determines QoE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Goswami, Sun and Zaphir before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a method in which a cloud server determines QoE based on the operational data collected by access points as taught by Goswami and Sun, to include enabling the access points to determine the QoE, as taught by Zaphir. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a more accurate, granular and immediate picture of a user’s experience as measuring the QoE from a server may miss crucial performance issues occurring between the AP and the client device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights