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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 02/19/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 1-6, 11, 16, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 11-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Starting on page 7 of remarks, applicant argues that previously indicated allowable subject matter was rolled into claims 1 and 19. However, the limitation that was amended to be included in these two claims is from claim 2, not one of the previously indicated allowable claims. Therefore, the rejections to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 19-20 are maintained. Please see claim rejection section below for further details.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orhan (Pub. No.: US 2024/0049272 A1) in view of Wietfeldt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0077506).
Regarding claim 1, Orhan teaches
A method for providing optimal communication between a single access point (AP) and a plurality of user terminals performed by a computing device (Orhan [0002] and [0075]: method for communication performed by a computing device), the method comprising:
obtaining terminal attribute information for each of the plurality of user terminals accessible to the single access point (AP), the single AP being a multi-band AP (Orhan fig. 4, [0027], [0037], and [0054]: obtaining various attributes of respective UEs (user equipment (user terminals)), accessible to AP; [0050-0051]: communication resources for devices ([0053]: access point) have a plurality of bands (multi-band));
calculating a channel score for each channel within each band provided by the single AP, …and the terminal attribute information of the plurality of user terminals (Orhan [0077] and [0067]: determining a sub-band score including a portion of channel information for each device (pieces of the terminal attribute information of the plurality of user terminals)); and
determining an optimal channel for the plurality of user terminals for each band provided by the single AP, based on the channel score (Orhan [0076-0078] and [0137]: determining where to communicate (optimal channel) based on the determined scores),
wherein the terminal attribute information includes an accessible band by a corresponding user terminal, in the multi-band providing by the single AP (Orhan [0051]: resource block groups associated with sub bands (multi-band used for communications), fig. 3: bands corresponding with the UEs).
Orhan does disclose channel mapping but does not appear to explicitly teach a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP.
However, Wietfeldt, in the analogous art of radio mapping for wireless devices, teaches
based on a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP (Wietfeldt [0099], [0136], [0075], and [0009]: “application-to-radio mapping”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Orhan to incorporate the teachings of Wietfeldt and have a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP. Doing so would allow for addressing changing channel conditions (Wietfeldt [0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein the terminal attribute information (lacking antecedent basis, please see claim rejection section above) further includes
at least one of: a mobility information (Orhan [0047], [0049]: mobility procedures, including determining if devices have moved (if user terminal is movable); [0081]: mobility of UEs), and an amount of induced traffic for each of the plurality of user terminals (Orhan [0038-0039]: traffic data).
Regarding claim 4, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The method of claim 2 (the limitations of parent claim 2 as indicated above), wherein the calculating of the channel score includes:
obtaining, for each of the user terminals whose accessible bands correspond to each other, a signal-to-interference noise ratio (SINR) value for a first channel within the corresponding accessible band, …(Orhan [0066], [0091], and [0097]: “SINR associated with the communication channel or measurements performed for the communication channel”);
calculating a channel score of each user terminal for the first channel based on at least some of the SINR value of each of the user terminals whose accessible bands correspond to each other and the induced amount of traffic (Orhan [0200]: score associated with each sub-band based on SINR value, and information including data scheduled for communication); and
calculating the channel score of the first channel by integrating the channel scores of the respective user terminals (Orhan [0076-0077] and [0027]: determining scores using information for all UEs).
Orhan does not appear to teach based on the radio map.
However, Wietfeldt, in the analogous art of radio mapping for wireless devices, teaches
based on the radio map (Wietfeldt [0099], [0136], [0075], and [0009]: “application-to-radio mapping”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Orhan to incorporate the teachings of Wietfeldt and have a radio map. Doing so would allow for addressing changing channel conditions (Wietfeldt [0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The method of claim 4 (the limitations of parent claim 4 as indicated above), wherein the SINR value is a value dependent on a real-time location of each of the user terminals (Orhan [0106]: SINR for each sub-band as part of channel information established using a sounding procedure (location)).
Regarding claim 7, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein the determining of the optimal channel includes
determining a channel having a highest channel score, among channels in the band, as the optimal channel for each band provided by the single AP (Orhan [0168]: bigger score may indicate higher data rate for communication).
Regarding claim 19, Orhan teaches
A computing device for providing optimal communication between a single access point (AP) and a plurality of user terminals, (Orhan [0032-0033]: apparatus) comprising:
a memory comprising instructions (Orhan [0024] and [0045-0046]: memory); and
a processor executing the instructions (Orhan [0045]: processor configured to execute various applications and/or programs) to:
obtain terminal attribute information for each of the plurality of user terminals accessible to a single access point (AP), the single AP being a multi-band AP (Orhan fig. 4, [0027], [0037], and [0054]: obtaining various attributes of respective UEs (user equipment (user terminals)), accessible to AP; [0050-0051]: communication resources for devices ([0053]: access point) have a plurality of bands (multi-band));
calculate a channel score for each channel within each band provided by the single AP, …and at least some of pieces of the terminal attribute information of the plurality of user terminals (Orhan [0077] and [0067]: determining a sub-band score including a portion of channel information for each device (pieces of the terminal attribute information of the plurality of user terminals)); and
determine an optimal channel for the plurality of user terminals for each band provided by the single AP, based on the channel score (Orhan [0076-0078] and [0137]: determining where to communicate (optimal channel) based on the determined scores),
wherein the terminal attribute information includes an accessible band by a corresponding user terminal, in the multi-band providing by the single AP (Orhan [0051]: resource block groups associated with sub bands (multi-band used for communications), fig. 3: bands corresponding with the UEs).
Orhan does disclose channel mapping but does not appear to explicitly teach a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP.
However, Wietfeldt, in the analogous art of radio mapping for wireless devices, teaches
based on a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP (Wietfeldt [0099], [0136], [0075], and [0009]: “application-to-radio mapping”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Orhan to incorporate the teachings of Wietfeldt and have a pre-constructed radio map for the single AP. Doing so would allow for addressing changing channel conditions (Wietfeldt [0099]).
Regarding claim 20, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The computing apparatus of claim 19 (the limitations of parent claim 19 as indicated above), wherein the calculating of the channel score includes:
obtaining, for each of the user terminals whose accessible bands correspond to each other, a signal-to-interference noise ratio (SINR) value for a first channel within the corresponding accessible band, … (Orhan [0066], [0091], and [0097]: “SINR associated with the communication channel or measurements performed for the communication channel”);
calculating a channel score of each user terminal for the first channel based on at least some of the SINR value of each of the user terminals whose accessible bands correspond to each other and the induced amount of traffic (Orhan [0200]: score associated with each sub-band based on SINR value, and information including data scheduled for communication); and
calculating the channel score of the first channel by integrating the channel scores of the respective user terminals (Orhan [0076-0077] and [0027]: determining scores using information for all UEs).
Orhan does not appear to teach based on the radio map.
However, Wietfeldt, in the analogous art of radio mapping for wireless devices, teaches
based on the radio map (Wietfeldt [0099], [0136], [0075], and [0009]: “application-to-radio mapping”)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Orhan to incorporate the teachings of Wietfeldt and have a radio map. Doing so would allow for addressing changing channel conditions (Wietfeldt [0099]).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orhan (Pub. No.: US 2024/0049272 A1) in view of Wietfeldt (Pub. No.: US 2012/0077506) further in view of Moreman (Pub. No.: US 2021/0282024 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Orhan modified by Wietfeldt teaches
The method of claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein the plurality of user terminals include…
Orhan appears to be silent regarding at least one band-fixed terminals for which a single access band is determined, and at least one band-changeable terminal for which an access band is changeable.
However, Moreman, in the analogous art of access point communication in a wireless network, teaches
at least one band-fixed terminals for which a single access band is determined, and at least one band-changeable terminal for which an access band is changeable ([0129-0130]: fixed channel band is determined and auto (changeable) band is determined).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Orhan and Wietfeldt to incorporate the teachings of Moreman and have at least one band-fixed terminals for which a single access band is determined, and at least one band-changeable terminal for which an access band is changeable. Doing so would allow for evaluation of recommendations to potentially change ideal scoring (Moreman [0129-0130]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6, and 9-10 are 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:
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 is rejected for lack of antecedent basis by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 9 in part recites: “calculating a primary channel score for each of the channels in the corresponding access band for the band-fixed terminals, among the user terminals whose access bands correspond to each other; calculating the channel score for each of the channels within the corresponding access band by reflecting the terminal attribute information on the band changeable terminals on the calculated primary channel score; and determining a band and the optimal channel to be accessed by the band-changeable terminal based on the calculated channel score”. This limitation in conjunction with the rest of the claim language differentiate from cited prior art.
Claims 10 and 18 in part recites: “wherein the radio map is pre-constructed based on propagation information including reception sensitivity level information for each location of the single AP and interference information for each channel in the band for the single AP”. This limitation in conjunction with the rest of the claim language differentiate from cited prior art.
Claim 13, in addition to the limitations of the claims which it is dependent on, recites: “wherein the induced amount of traffic is obtained in the form of a ratio based on a user terminal with the largest induced amount of traffic for each preset time period”. This limitation in conjunction with the rest of the claim language differentiate from cited prior art.
Claim 11, in addition to the limitations of the claims which it is dependent on, recites: “calculating a final channel score for each of channels within each band by reflecting the terminal attribute information on band-changeable terminals among the plurality of user terminals, on the primary channel score…wherein the terminal attribute information includes an accessible band by a corresponding user terminal, in the multi-band providing by the single AP”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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.
/R.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412