DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been provided nor considered at the time of this Office Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
4. Newly submitted claims 21-27 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
A) The previous independent claims 1 and 18 pertain to detect and receive wireless signals from the remaining electronic devices or additional wireless signals associated with a potential higher priority user in a frequency band subject to a DFS, and determined whether they are true/valid detection based on the detection threshold, wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both. In addition, the CPC class of the independent claims 1 and 18 and their dependent claims may include (H04W72/0453 and H04W72/566).
B) The new independent claim 21 pertain to detect and receive wireless signals from the remaining electronic devices or additional wireless signals for reducing false (DFS) detections for radar events in a wireless network, wherein grouping the plurality of access points into RF neighborhoods which based on proximity of the APs and background scanning information and/or common layer-two domain and using site survey results to update the detection threshold. Moreover, set of recommendations is applied to ignore false positive radar detections, predict future false positive detections and update radar detection threshold as described in the dependent claims (22-27) . In addition, independent claim 21 and its dependent claims have CPC class, such as (G01S7/2927OR G01S13/0218 OR G01S7/021), that differs from those for claims 1 and 18.
Claims 1 and 18 (and their dependent claims) make no mention of the underlined portion of claims 21-27 as mentioned above.
Claims 21-27 make no mention of the underlined portion from claims 1 and 18 (and their dependent claims) as mentioned above.
For at least these reasons, there is a patentable difference and a search burden between the previous set of claims and the newly added claims 21-27.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-27 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Remarks
5. This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 03/03/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 18 and 21-27, are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 18 have been amended, Claims 4, 10, 15-17, 19, and 20 have been canceled, claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14 have been previously presented and claims 21-27 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, therefore, the final rejection is maintained. Applicant argues in substance that:
Tsai fails to disclose or suggest "discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected
the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection
threshold," as recited by amended Claim 1. (Page 9, Remarks).
In response to A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsai teaches determine whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold by discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection threshold (Figs. 40-41 and 35, [0202], lines 13-15, [0228], lines 1-9, [0235], lines 27-33, the system can validate the detected radar event is valid or invalid (real signal or false signal) based on a probability exceeding a detection threshold based on some parameters (information) as described in [0237], lines 44-50. Fig. 20 and [0197] states “An exemplary inference for validating a detected radar event can comprise concluding the detected radar event is valid in such a case if both sensors detected the same radar event, where it can be presumed that the probability of the detected radar event being a real radar (e.g., radar 2102) event is high. That implies the determining of whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based on the information. [0223] states “further derivative information regarding radar detection effectiveness (e.g., node trust information) can be generated and/or employed by various embodiments herein, e.g., via a cloud intelligence engine, or otherwise, to facilitate employing inference and/or algorithms to discriminate between random noise 3004 and radar 3102 to facilitate reducing false detections and/or network downtime in exemplary networks exemplary networks (e.g., exemplary mesh networks) employing DFS channels, as described herein.” And further states “that is consistently antithetical with the results of radar information propagation 3008, voting, validating and/or invalidating suspected radar events, then, a trust metric for that exemplary mesh network node host device 3206 (or other device) can be deprecated, …. to valid radar signals.” That implies the trust metrics can be used to determine how much the impact of detection of devices or vote should have counted in validation the radar events and reducing the false detection. The trust metric can be calculated based on device history (the performance of each device, accuracy, and voting results. If the device consistently disagreed or has a history of false detections (based on the database, which are stored in the system for months or years [0077]) its trust metric is deprecated or reduced, as stated in [0223]. Only the trusted devices or APs are used in the threshold based validation as stated in the example [0197], where the trust metrics are continuously updated as a new detection and voting information is received which allowed the system to improve the device performance as stated in [0223]. Moreover, [0194] states “such redundant radar event information (false detections) can be propagated throughout the network, e.g., an exemplary mesh network, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection, and resultant network downtime associated with false detections.,” and [0195] states “various embodiments can employ inference and algorithms employing this redundant radar event information, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection.“ That implies the action can be performed according to the propagation of the false detections by updated the blacklist of the APs that have history of wrong detection, as also confirmed in [0241] as states “In yet another non-limiting aspect, an exemplary cloud intelligence engine, as described herein, can be further configured to transmit one or more recommendations regarding the one or more radar events, e.g., to one or more exemplary mesh nodes, to one or more exemplary mesh network groups, and so on, regarding the one or more radar event, regarding channel switching, regarding updates to one or more of blacklists, whitelists, preference lists, etc., as further described herein.”). Therefore, the office action still teach the limitations as currently claimed.
Tsai fails to disclose or suggest that the devices are "aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both," as recited by Claim 1. (Pages 9-10, Remarks).
In response to B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsai teaches wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both (Figs. 32 shows a mesh network with primary DFS master and multiple secondary DFS masters (distributed agility agents), [0242] describes several grouping criteria that include the utilization of the given electronic device, such as for network performance, QoS, or location information, as states “ it can be desirable to group certain exemplary mesh nodes of an exemplary mesh network together, e.g., from a network performance perspective, from a location perspective, from a quality of service perspective, and so on, without limitation” and “the one or more grouping criteria can comprise or be associated with network performance, location information, and/or device characteristics associated with one or more exemplary mesh nodes, quality of service, regulatory information, spectral information, and so on, without limitation.” In other example that shows the grouping can be based on the device features, as shown in Fig. 44 and stated in [0250], lines exemplary devices or systems 4400 can comprise one or more radar sensors or detectors (e.g., a primary DFS master, a secondary DFS master, a multi-channel DFS master, a standalone DFS master, an agility agent, whether embedded or distributed, etc.) associated with the host device (e.g., exemplary mesh network node host device 3206, configured as a DFS master, such as a multi-channel DFS master, etc.) configured to receive an indication of a suspected radar event on one or more DFS channel in a mesh network”. These parts of paragraphs describe clearly that electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based on the using of the given electronic device). We have addressed one of three types of aggregation because of using OR as an alternative. Therefore, the office action still teach the limitations as currently claimed.
Applicant argues that the independent claims 1 and 18 are allowable for similar reasons (Page 10, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section.
Applicant argues that the remaining claims, dependent claims are allowable for similar reasons (Page 13, Remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, for at least the same reasons given in the response above, and as detailed in the Claim Rejections section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian et al. (US-20170311171-A1) in view of Tsai et al. (US-20180014205-A1).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently amended), Kurian teaches an electronic device, comprising: an interface circuit ([0007] states “ an interface circuit in the electronic device may receive the frame from a second electronic device, such as an access point in a WLAN), which implies the electronic device have an interface circuit for communication) configured to communicate with a computer system and remaining electronic devices in a group of electronic devices that comprises the electronic device (Figs.1, 4 and 6, claim 1, lines 1-8, [0030], lines 1-8, describe an electronic device that includes interface circuit that is capable to communicate with other electronic devices, as states “The electronic device, in some embodiments, can also operate as part of a wireless communication system, which can include a set of client devices, which can also be referred to as stations, client electronic devices, or client electronic devices, interconnected to an access point, e.g., as part of a WLAN” and [0034], lines 2-9 states “In particular, electronic device 110 (such as a smartphone, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet, or another such electronic device, which is sometimes referred to as a ‘primary electronic device”) and access point 112-1 may communicate wirelessly in a wireless local area network (WLAN) using an IEEE 802.11 communication protocol”, these parts of paragraphs illustrate the communication among the electronic device and the other electronic devices in a group), wherein the electronic device is configured to: detect wireless signals associated with a potential higher priority user in a band of frequencies subject to a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) regulation ([0037], lines 14-25, [0100], illustrate the access point or the electronic device can detect wireless signals by dynamic frequency selection (DFS) information that indicates a presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies. The Access point 112-1 may monitor the shared band of radio frequencies for the presence of signals associated with the one or more higher priority users. When access point 112-1 detects the presence of such signals, access point 112-1 may provide information that indicates the presence of the signals from higher priority users in the shared band of radio frequencies to electronic devices, as stated in [0037], lines 11-25 “The shared band of radio frequencies used by electronic device 110 and access point 112-1 may be shared with one or more higher priority users, e.g., with separate radar systems and/or by first responder radios. In order to comply with applicable communications regulations associated with the shared band of radio frequencies, such as rules mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, or similarly by a regulatory agency in other regions, access point 112-1 may monitor the shared band of radio frequencies for the presence of signals associated with the one or more higher priority users”); receive, associated with the remaining electronic devices, information specifying whether the remaining electronic devices detected the wireless signals or additional wireless signals associated with the potential higher priority user in the band of frequencies ([0100], states “a method for serving as a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) proxy with respect to a shared band of radio frequencies includes, by using an interface circuit in an electronic device associated with an access point, (i) receiving, from the access point, dynamic frequency selection (DFS) information that indicates a presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies” that indicates the electronic device can receive information from other electronic devices indicating whether they detect the presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies, which also illustrated in claim 1, lines 9-16);
Kurian fails to teach determine whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold by discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection threshold; when the electronic device determines that the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection, the electronic device is configured to selectively perform the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies; and provide, addressed to the computer system or the remaining electronic devices, a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection, wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both.
However, Tsai teaches determine whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold by discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection threshold (Figs. 40-41 and 35, [0202], lines 13-15, [0228], lines 1-9, [0235], lines 27-33, the system can validate the detected radar event is valid or invalid (real signal or false signal) based on a probability exceeding a detection threshold based on some parameters (information) as described in [0237], lines 44-50. Fig. 20 and [0197] states “An exemplary inference for validating a detected radar event can comprise concluding the detected radar event is valid in such a case if both sensors detected the same radar event, where it can be presumed that the probability of the detected radar event being a real radar (e.g., radar 2102) event is high. That implies the determining of whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based on the information. [0223] states “further derivative information regarding radar detection effectiveness (e.g., node trust information) can be generated and/or employed by various embodiments herein, e.g., via a cloud intelligence engine, or otherwise, to facilitate employing inference and/or algorithms to discriminate between random noise 3004 and radar 3102 to facilitate reducing false detections and/or network downtime in exemplary networks exemplary networks (e.g., exemplary mesh networks) employing DFS channels, as described herein.” And further states “that is consistently antithetical with the results of radar information propagation 3008, voting, validating and/or invalidating suspected radar events, then, a trust metric for that exemplary mesh network node host device 3206 (or other device) can be deprecated, …. to valid radar signals.” That implies the trust metrics can be used to determine how much the impact of detection of devices or vote should have counted in validation the radar events and reducing the false detection. The trust metric can be calculated based on device history (the performance of each device, accuracy, and voting results. If the device consistently disagreed or has a history of false detections (based on the database, which are stored in the system for months or years [0077]) its trust metric is deprecated or reduced, as stated in [0223]. Only the trusted devices or APs are used in the threshold based validation as stated in the example [0197], where the trust metrics are continuously updated as a new detection and voting information is received which allowed the system to improve the device performance as stated in [0223]. Moreover, [0194] states “such redundant radar event information (false detections) can be propagated throughout the network, e.g., an exemplary mesh network, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection, and resultant network downtime associated with false detections.,” and [0195] states “various embodiments can employ inference and algorithms employing this redundant radar event information, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection.“ That implies the action can be performed according to the propagation of the false detections by updated the blacklist of the APs that have history of wrong detection, as also confirmed in [0241] as states “In yet another non-limiting aspect, an exemplary cloud intelligence engine, as described herein, can be further configured to transmit one or more recommendations regarding the one or more radar events, e.g., to one or more exemplary mesh nodes, to one or more exemplary mesh network groups, and so on, regarding the one or more radar event, regarding channel switching, regarding updates to one or more of blacklists, whitelists, preference lists, etc., as further described herein.”), when the electronic device determines that the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection, the electronic device is configured to selectively perform the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies (Figs. 4, 5 and 30, [0187] describe the device operating in DFTS channels vacate the channel by detecting radar signals to avoid interference, “when a potential radar event is detected on a DFS channel, a device communicating on a DFS channel has to vacate a DFS channel within 200 milliseconds (ms) and stay off the DFS channel for 30 minutes.” [0079], lines 11-15 also depict that if a radar pattern is detected (true positive detection), the DFS master beacon for the respective channel is stopped, and the channel is marked in the blacklist and removed from the whitelist (and no longer ISM scanned). Figs. 1 , 41 and 42, [0208], lines 12-17 states “Conventionally, when a DFS master detects radar in that channel, the DFS master no longer transmits the beacon, and all client devices upon not sensing the beacon within a prescribed time must vacate the channel immediately and remain off that channel for 30 minutes”, that implies the electronic device that perform DFS can vacate a DFS channel and stay off the DFS channel (portion of band) on a specific time period, [0257] and Fig. 42 describe CTS or hold transmission scenario for this situation); and provide, addressed to the computer system or the remaining electronic devices, a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection (claim 1, and [0011], lines 9- 19, describe the device notifies the computer system and the other devices in the network whether the detected signals are true positive (real/valid) or false positive signals by propagation radar information, as stated “propagating, in the mesh network, radar information regarding the suspected radar event or the valid radar event to another mesh node or a cloud intelligence engine (computer system) associated with the mesh network.”), wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both (Figs. 32 shows a mesh network with primary DFS master and multiple secondary DFS masters (distributed agility agents), [0242] describes several grouping criteria that include the utilization of the given electronic device, such as for network performance, QoS, or location information, as states “ it can be desirable to group certain exemplary mesh nodes of an exemplary mesh network together, e.g., from a network performance perspective, from a location perspective, from a quality of service perspective, and so on, without limitation” and “the one or more grouping criteria can comprise or be associated with network performance, location information, and/or device characteristics associated with one or more exemplary mesh nodes, quality of service, regulatory information, spectral information, and so on, without limitation.” In other example that shows the grouping can be based on the device features, as shown in Fig. 44 and stated in [0250], lines exemplary devices or systems 4400 can comprise one or more radar sensors or detectors (e.g., a primary DFS master, a secondary DFS master, a multi-channel DFS master, a standalone DFS master, an agility agent, whether embedded or distributed, etc.) associated with the host device (e.g., exemplary mesh network node host device 3206, configured as a DFS master, such as a multi-channel DFS master, etc.) configured to receive an indication of a suspected radar event on one or more DFS channel in a mesh network”. These parts of paragraphs describe clearly that electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based on the using of the given electronic device).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding determine whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold, the electronic device is configured to selectively perform the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies; and provide a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection to insure comply the regulation required by the FCC or other agencies and avoid the interference (Tsai, [0069], lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the electronic device comprises an access point ([0005], 3-5, [0102], lines 4-5, the access point often acts a DFS master device, responsible for detecting radar signals in DFS channels, performing channel availability checks, and managing communication with client devices).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the remaining electronic devices comprise access points for simultaneously providing infrastructure connectivity (Tsai, [0142], lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the remaining electronic devices comprise access points ([0132], lines 14-17, [0229], lines 28-31, the electronic devices can also comprise access points).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the remaining electronic devices comprise access points for simultaneously providing infrastructure connectivity (Tsai, [0142], lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the computer system comprises a controller of the electronic device or a cloud-based analytics service (Figs. 7-8, [0028], [0068], lines 3-10, [0128], describe the computers system can function locally as a controller or remotely (via cloud intelligence engine) to perform and manage the electronic devices operations. [0071], lines 27-29, the agility agent (wireless device) uses the information from the cloud intelligence engine to control the access points and other network devices).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the computer system comprises a controller of the electronic device or a cloud-based analytics service to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the determining whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection is based at least in part on a number of the remaining electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or additional wireless signals ([0197], lines 28-39, this part depicts a different scenarios for determining whether the detected wireless signals are true or false detection, which can be based on the number of remaining electronic devices that also detected the wireless signals. If other devices confirm the signal, it is considered a true positive, otherwise it may be classified as a false positive).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection is based at least in part on a number of the remaining electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or additional wireless signals which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 6.
Tsai further teaches wherein the detection threshold comprises an integer number greater than one (Fig. 41, [0233], lines 1-11, [0235], lines 20-27, [0237], 44-50, the radar events is considered valid if the detected pulses exceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g. N≥ X, where N is the predetermined threshold number of pulse required to classify a signal a suspected event and X is an integer greater than one).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the detection threshold comprises an integer number greater than one to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein at least one of the remaining electronic devices is outside of wireless range of the electronic device (Figs. 19 A and B, which illustrate the hidden node (where the device is unable to detect other devices or radar signals) or hidden radar problem (e.g., where a node or radar is hidden due to topography, obstruction, distance or channel conditions, etc.).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding at least one of the remaining electronic devices is outside of wireless range of the electronic device to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches, wherein the determining whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection is based at least in part on spatial and temporal statistical associations of detections of the wireless signals ([0189], lines 27-33, [0169], [0129], line 5-9, [0132], algorithm can be applied based on the spatial and temporal statistical relations of detections. The cloud intelligent engine collects the spectrum information from multiple devices over the time and space. The cloud intelligent engine is continuously applying sophisticated filtering, spatial and time correlation and integration operations, and novel array-combining techniques, and pattern recognition, etc. This process help in identification of validation of the detected signals by leveraging special positions and angles and temporal data like time-stamped spectrum information [0222], lines 7-11) or the additional wireless signals among the remaining electronic devices.
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding spatial and temporal statistical associations of detections to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches, wherein the determining whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection is based at least in part on a history of false positive detections for the remaining electronic devices ([0135], lines 43-46,[0195], lines 1-6, [0223], lines 1-15, the cloud intelligence engine collects and store over the time, including radar detection history for the electronic devices and false positive detection patterns, and uses these historical information to improve detection algorithms and reduce the false positive detection).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by determining whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection is based at least in part on a history of false positive detections for the remaining electronic devices to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Tsai further teaches wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices may be aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on one or more of: received signal strength indicators, another communication-performance metric, ([0242], lines 16-22, [0116], lines 8-24, the aggregation of devices can be based on communication-performance metrics such as received signal strength indicators RSSI. It states in [0146], lines 15-19, “ The agility agent 1970 only authorizes access points (e.g., 1990, 1991, 1992) which it sees by scan list and above a certain RSSI threshold. Access points 1980 who are not seen or have RSSI too low are deemed too far to use the agility agent's 1970 whitelist”, which indicates the use of RSSI as a criterion for aggregation determination of the devices into groups), or signal-to-noise ratios.
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices may be aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on one or more of: received signal strength indicators to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 13.
Tsai further teaches wherein the electronic device is configured to receive, associated with the computer system, information specifying the group of electronic devices (Fig. 46 and [0242], lines 25-35, describe that the grouping information can be specified and communicated to electronic devices by a computer system, such as cloud intelligence engine as shown in Fig. 22).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding the electronic device is configured to receive, associated with the computer system, information specifying the group of electronic devices to enhance the network reliability by reducing the false detections which leads to efficient use of DFS channels in WCS (Tsai, [0190]).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently amended), Kurian teaches a method for selectively performing dynamic frequency selection (DFS) ([0098], claim 11, lines 1-6, it describes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by an interface circuit included in a mobile device, cause the mobile device to serve as a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) proxy with respect to a shared band of radio frequencies) comprising: by an electronic device: detecting wireless signals associated with a potential higher priority user in a band of frequencies subject to a DFS regulation ([0037], lines 14-25, [0100], illustrate the access point or the electronic device can detect wireless signals by dynamic frequency selection (DFS) information that indicates a presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies. The Access point 112-1 may monitor the shared band of radio frequencies for the presence of signals associated with the one or more higher priority users. When access point 112-1 detects the presence of such signals, access point 112-1 may provide information that indicates the presence of the signals from higher priority users in the shared band of radio frequencies to electronic devices, as stated in [0037], lines 11-25 “The shared band of radio frequencies used by electronic device 110 and access point 112-1 may be shared with one or more higher priority users, e.g., with separate radar systems and/or by first responder radios. In order to comply with applicable communications regulations associated with the shared band of radio frequencies, such as rules mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, or similarly by a regulatory agency in other regions, access point 112-1 may monitor the shared band of radio frequencies for the presence of signals associated with the one or more higher priority users”); receiving, associated with remaining electronic devices in a group of electronic devices that comprises the electronic device, information specifying whether the remaining electronic devices detected the wireless signals or additional wireless signals associated with the potential higher priority user in the band of frequencies ([0100], states “a method for serving as a dynamic frequency selection (DFS) proxy with respect to a shared band of radio frequencies includes, by using an interface circuit in an electronic device associated with an access point, (i) receiving, from the access point, dynamic frequency selection (DFS) information that indicates a presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies” that indicates the electronic device can receive information from other electronic devices indicating whether they detect the presence of interference associated with a higher priority user in the shared band of radio frequencies, which also illustrated in claim 1, lines 9-16);
Kurian fails to teach determining whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold by discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection threshold; when the electronic device determines that the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection, selectively performing the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies; and providing, addressed to a computer system or the remaining electronic devices, a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection, wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both.
However, Tsai teaches determining whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold by discounting detection of the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals by remaining electronic devices that have a history of false positive detections and comparing a number of electronic devices that detected the wireless signals or the additional wireless signals, after the discounting, to the detection threshold ((Figs. 40-41 and 35, [0202], lines 13-15, [0228], lines 1-9, [0235], lines 27-33, the system can validate the detected radar event is valid or invalid (real signal or false signal) based on a probability exceeding a detection threshold based on some parameters (information) as described in [0237], lines 44-50. Fig. 20 and [0197] states “An exemplary inference for validating a detected radar event can comprise concluding the detected radar event is valid in such a case if both sensors detected the same radar event, where it can be presumed that the probability of the detected radar event being a real radar (e.g., radar 2102) event is high. That implies the determining of whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based on the information. [0223] states “further derivative information regarding radar detection effectiveness (e.g., node trust information) can be generated and/or employed by various embodiments herein, e.g., via a cloud intelligence engine, or otherwise, to facilitate employing inference and/or algorithms to discriminate between random noise 3004 and radar 3102 to facilitate reducing false detections and/or network downtime in exemplary networks exemplary networks (e.g., exemplary mesh networks) employing DFS channels, as described herein.” And further states “that is consistently antithetical with the results of radar information propagation 3008, voting, validating and/or invalidating suspected radar events, then, a trust metric for that exemplary mesh network node host device 3206 (or other device) can be deprecated, …. to valid radar signals.” That implies the trust metrics can be used to determine how much the impact of detection of devices or vote should have counted in validation the radar events and reducing the false detection. The trust metric can be calculated based on device history (the performance of each device, accuracy, and voting results. If the device consistently disagreed or has a history of false detections (based on the database, which are stored in the system for months or years [0077]) its trust metric is deprecated or reduced, as stated in [0223]. Only the trusted devices or APs are used in the threshold based validation as stated in the example [0197], where the trust metrics are continuously updated as a new detection and voting information is received which allowed the system to improve the device performance as stated in [0223]. Moreover, [0194] states “such redundant radar event information (false detections) can be propagated throughout the network, e.g., an exemplary mesh network, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection, and resultant network downtime associated with false detections.,” and [0195] states “various embodiments can employ inference and algorithms employing this redundant radar event information, to facilitate further reducing instances of false radar detection.“ That implies the action can be performed according to the propagation of the false detections by updated the blacklist of the APs that have history of wrong detection, as also confirmed in [0241] as states “In yet another non-limiting aspect, an exemplary cloud intelligence engine, as described herein, can be further configured to transmit one or more recommendations regarding the one or more radar events, e.g., to one or more exemplary mesh nodes, to one or more exemplary mesh network groups, and so on, regarding the one or more radar event, regarding channel switching, regarding updates to one or more of blacklists, whitelists, preference lists, etc., as further described herein.”); when the electronic device determines that the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection, selectively performing the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies (Figs. 4, 5 and 30, [0187] describe the device operating in DFTS channels vacate the channel by detecting radar signals to avoid interference, “when a potential radar event is detected on a DFS channel, a device communicating on a DFS channel has to vacate a DFS channel within 200 milliseconds (ms) and stay off the DFS channel for 30 minutes.” [0079], lines 11-15 also depict that if a radar pattern is detected (true positive detection), the DFS master beacon for the respective channel is stopped, and the channel is marked in the blacklist and removed from the whitelist (and no longer ISM scanned). Figs. 1 , 41 and 42, [0208], lines 12-17 states “Conventionally, when a DFS master detects radar in that channel, the DFS master no longer transmits the beacon, and all client devices upon not sensing the beacon within a prescribed time must vacate the channel immediately and remain off that channel for 30 minutes”, that implies the electronic device that perform DFS can vacate a DFS channel and stay off the DFS channel (portion of band) on a specific time period, [0257] and Fig. 42 describe CTS or hold transmission scenario for this situation); and providing, addressed to a computer system or the remaining electronic devices, a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection (claim 1, and [0011], lines 9- 19, describe the device notifies the computer system and the other devices in the network whether the detected signals are true positive (real/valid) or false positive signals by propagation radar information, as stated “propagating, in the mesh network, radar information regarding the suspected radar event or the valid radar event to another mesh node or a cloud intelligence engine (computer system) associated with the mesh network.”), wherein the electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based at least in part on: a number of clients of a given electronic device in the remaining electronic devices, utilization of the given electronic device, or both (Figs. 32 shows a mesh network with primary DFS master and multiple secondary DFS masters (distributed agility agents), [0242] describes several grouping criteria that include the utilization of the given electronic device, such as for network performance, QoS, or location information, as states “ it can be desirable to group certain exemplary mesh nodes of an exemplary mesh network together, e.g., from a network performance perspective, from a location perspective, from a quality of service perspective, and so on, without limitation” and “the one or more grouping criteria can comprise or be associated with network performance, location information, and/or device characteristics associated with one or more exemplary mesh nodes, quality of service, regulatory information, spectral information, and so on, without limitation.” In other example that shows the grouping can be based on the device features, as shown in Fig. 44 and stated in [0250], lines exemplary devices or systems 4400 can comprise one or more radar sensors or detectors (e.g., a primary DFS master, a secondary DFS master, a multi-channel DFS master, a standalone DFS master, an agility agent, whether embedded or distributed, etc.) associated with the host device (e.g., exemplary mesh network node host device 3206, configured as a DFS master, such as a multi-channel DFS master, etc.) configured to receive an indication of a suspected radar event on one or more DFS channel in a mesh network”. These parts of paragraphs describe clearly that electronic device and the remaining electronic devices are aggregated into the group of electronic devices based on the using of the given electronic device).
Therefore, 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 Kurian to incorporate the teachings of Tsai (in analogous art) by adding determine whether the detected wireless signals are a true positive detection or a false positive detection based at least in part on the information and a detection threshold, the electronic device is configured to selectively perform the DFS by ceasing use of at least a portion of the band of frequencies; and provide a notification as to whether the detected wireless signals are the true positive detection or the false positive detection to insure comply the regulation required by the FCC or other agencies and avoid the interference (Tsai, [0069], lines 27-30).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurian et al. (US-20170311171-A1) in view of Tsai et al. (US-20180014205-A1) and further in view of McFarland et al. (US- 20190342795-A1).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Kurian and Tsai teach the electronic device of claim 1.
Kurian and Tsai fail to teach wherein at least one of the remaining electronic devices is M hops away from the electronic device and M is an integer greater than one.
However, McFarland teaches wherein at least one of the remaining electronic devices is M hops away from the electronic device and M is an integer greater than one (Fig. 9, [0028], lines 15-28, the concept of hops s fundamental principle in mesh network operation. The Wi-Fi mesh network operates based on multiple mesh nodes being fully interconnected, sharing the same channel, and allowing multiple paths between the mesh nodes and the wireless client device, as stated “Specifically, the Wi-Fi mesh network 32 operates based on the mesh nodes 36 being fully interconnected with one another, sharing a channel such as a channel X between each of the mesh nodes 36 and the Wi-Fi client device 16.”. This inherently involves hops between nodes. If M, the number of hops, equal one, that’s mean the two devices are directly connected without passing through other nodes, single transmission step from two devices, hence the number of hops M is integer and greater than one, [0029] states “The distributed Wi-Fi system 10 is not constrained to a star topology as in the Wi-Fi repeater network 33 which at most allows two wireless hops between the Wi-Fi client device 16 and a gateway.” Which means more than 1 hope, [0311], lines 9-10 also confirm that as states ” It is unclear if we can extend this to the entire multi-hop network. As written, it seems to imply it can only go one hop, as the two devices must be associated).
Therefore, 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 Kurian in view of Tsai to incorporate the teachings of McFarland (in analogous art) by adding at least one of the remaining electronic devices is M hops away from the electronic device and M is an integer greater than one to enhance the performance of the mesh networks (McFarland, [0028], lines 22-26).
Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Beaudin et al. (US-20210373143-A1), Garg et al. (US-20170026845-A1), Stephens et al. (US-20210037535-A1), Tsai et al. (US-10880903-B1), Tang et al. (US-20160219581-A1) teach methods for DFS channels in wireless communication systems.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANAA S AL SAMAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/SANAA AL SAMAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights