DETAILED ACTION
Response filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim status
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 17 are amended.
Claim 12 is canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 12/15/2025 has been fully considered but are moot in view of introduction of new prior art for rejection of amended claims.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are not withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are not of sufficient quality to permit examination. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
The provided drawings bear little relation to the invention. Applicant is requested to provide new set of drawings.
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 1-4, 9, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekara et al. (), hereinafter “Gunasekara” in view of Mishra et al. (US 11,729,635 B2), hereinafter “Mishra”, and further in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 9,693,321 B2), hereinafter “Venkatraman”.
Claims 1, 9, and 17:
Regarding claim 1, Gunasekara teaches A computer-implemented method for operating and maintaining a wireless network system within a building comprising a 5G network and a Wi-Fi network ([abstract] “Methods and apparatus for monitoring and controlling access to coexisting first and second networks, such as within a venue; Col.18, lines 64-68 – Col.19 line 1, “In certain embodiments, each AP 202, 204, 206, 208 is located within and/or services one or more areas within one or more venues (e.g., a building, room, or plaza for commercial, corporate, academic purposes, and/or any other”), comprising:
Gunasekara teaches capturing, by a master node, location data and measurement data reported by one or more mobile devices (Clm.1 “measure at least one network parameter associated with a second wireless network, the measurement based at least on a radio frequency scan at a location of the user device, the radio frequency scan configured to detect radio signals associated with the first and second wireless networks propagating within the location”), but fails to expressly teach capturing location data and measurement data reported by one or more access points of the wireless network system.
In the same field of endeavor, Misra teaches about location data reporting, “RF measurements may be collected as required for the purpose of the test, with each data point tagged with time and date as well as location. (Col.1, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Mishra with that of Gunasekara to come up with the claimed invention for network power optimization by controlling transmission powers of the access points based on location information.
Gunasekara teaches, using, by the master node, the location data and the measurement data reported by the one or more mobile devices and measurement data captured by the master node to optimize network performance ([abstract] “the first network is a managed network that includes wireless access points (APs) in data communication with a backend controller, which communicates with a client process on a user device. The client process uses indigenous radio technology of the user device to scan for coexisting networks, and report results to the controller. In one variant, the controller dynamically adjusts transmit characteristics of the AP(s) to manage interference between the coexisting networks; master node of the claim may be equated with the controller of Gunasekara); and
adjusting, by the master node, one or more parameters within the wireless network system the one or more parameters comprising at least one of a transmission power of each of the one or more access points or adjusting a location of at least one of the one or more access points ([Abstract] “In one variant, the controller dynamically adjusts transmit characteristics of the AP(s) to manage interference between the coexisting networks”).
.
Claim 9 is for a computing system. The claim elements are discussed above in claim 1. Existence of memory and processor are implied.
Claim 17 is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1.
Claims 2 and 10:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the measurement data comprises mobile device distribution, service quality and signal quality, all of which is captured by the one or more mobile devices (Gunasekara: Col.4, lines 31-36 “”the detecting a first type of wireless signal, the detecting comprising receiving data from a first radio frequency (RF) receiver apparatus includes detecting one or more of an Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) value).
Though mobile device distribution is not expressly taught by Gunsekara, Mishra’s disclosure, as discussed above in claim 1, “RF measurements may be collected as required for the purpose of the test, with each data point tagged with time and date as well as location. (Col.1, lines 45-48), implies mobile device distribution.
Claims 3 and 11:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the adjusting of the wireless network system comprises allocating a different frequency to each of a plurality of access nodes, or reducing a transmission power of each of the plurality of access nodes, to reduce an overlap coverage area between each of the plurality of access nodes (Gunasekara: [Abstract] “In one variant, the controller dynamically adjusts transmit characteristics of the AP(s) to manage interference between the coexisting networks.”; Col. 40, lines 5-13, “A reduced transmit power may conserve power consumption of the AP, which may be useful for APs that are battery powered, used relatively infrequently, or typically used by client devices that are within close range (a cafe setting, lounge area, gift shop, small office, concession stand, airport gate, etc.), so as to inter alia, mitigate interference with other RATs (whether operated by the MSO or otherwise)”
Regarding claim 4, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the adjusting the location of each of the plurality of access nodes reduces interference and enhance coverage of each of the plurality of access nodes (Mishra: Clm. 1 “sending, from the coordinating server to the in-vehicle base station, an instruction to drive to the geographic location;”; determining, at the coordinating server, based on the data analysis, a geographic location having RF measurement statistics below a threshold set by an operator of the core network;).
Claims 5-8, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Gunasekara and Mishra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2019/0373627 A1), hereinafter “Luo”.
Claims 5 and 13:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Gunasekara and Mishra however does not expressly teach but in the same field of endeavaor, Luo teaches, wherein the adjusting of the wireless network system comprises utilizing beamforming or steering, by the master node, to direct the beam towards each of the plurality of mobile devices, reducing the signal or signal-to-noise interference and increasing the frequency throughput (Luo: Clm.6, “wherein the indication of the scheduling plan schedules, for a scheduling state, data transmissions for different UEs, or different beam patterns, or a combination thereof.”; Clm. 23 “receiving, at the scheduling node, an interference profile from a central unit; identifying at least one UE, or at least one beam direction, or a combination thereof, as interfering based at least in part on the received interference profile”.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Luo with that of the combination of Gunasekara and Mishra motivated by reduction of interference and increase the throughtput.
Claims 6, 14, and 18:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5 (discussed above), wherein the utilizing of the beam comprises directing the beam in a direction where each of the plurality of mobile devices are located (Luo: Clm. 23 “identifying at least one UE, or at least one beam direction, or a combination thereof, as interfering based at least in part on the received interference profile”; [0116] “The DU 510 may therefore assign the interfering UEs, beam directions, etc. to different time units or different non-overlapping resource block allocations (e.g., as described with reference to resources 410-a and 410-b, as discussed in FIG. 4).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Luo with that of the combination of Gunasekara and Mishra motivated by reduction of interference by use of frequency or time resource.
Claims 7, 15, and 19:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the adjusting of the wireless network system comprises scheduling each of the plurality of mobile devices in different time slices to reduce interference significantly, wherein each of the plurality of mobile devices belong to different access nodes (Luo: [0116] “The DU 510 may therefore assign the interfering UEs, beam directions, etc. to different time units or different non-overlapping resource block allocations (e.g., as described with reference to resources 410-a and 410-b, as discussed in FIG. 4)”; Different access nodes may be equated with the IAB nodes 405b-g).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Luo with that of the combination of Gunasekara and Mishra motivated by reduction of interference by use of frequency or time resource.
Claims 8, 16, and 20:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Gunasekara and Mishra discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7 (discussed above), wherein the scheduling of each of the plurality of devices comprises exchanging, on a radio link, control information and scheduling information between each of the plurality of access points for coordination purposes (Luo: Clm.1 identifying, for a scheduling node, an indication of a scheduling plan specifying a pattern of scheduling states over a period of time, the indication of the scheduling plan based at least in part on the measurement report and to be used by the scheduling node to schedule communication resources for the UE. “).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by Luo with that of the combination of Gunasekara and Mishra motivated by scheduling of communication resources for UE’s as disclosed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,693,321 B2 teaches A system and method for dynamically optimizing the performance of indoor distributed antenna systems.
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 INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights