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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of 1-13, 21-28 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 13, 21-25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. Pub. No. US 20240040659 A1 in view of Turon et al. Pub. No. US 20180242379 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Rodriguez teaches a method implemented at least in part at a first wireless router of a wireless mesh network that includes at least the first wireless router and a second wireless router (Fig. 1 and 2 and Para 12 and 15, mesh network having intermediate router 118 and router 136 and new router 140 refer to as first wireless router and the second wireless router), the method comprising:
establishing a network connection between the first wireless router and an Internet Service Provider (ISP) (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and Para 12 and 15, router 136 may be a wireless router that connects directly to modem 138 by a cable. This allows router 136 to receive information from, and transmit information to, the Internet 108 i.e., establishing a network connection between the first wireless router and an Internet Service Provider (ISP));
storing, at the first wireless router, credential data associated with establishing, at least partly in response to termination of the network connection, a wireless connection with a secondary wireless access point (WAP) (Para 36, the intermediate router controller 100 and selectable options of the intermediate router controller 100 may be stored in the operation rules store 216 and updated locally or remotely. Other code or programs 230 (e.g., routing or other network management software, and the like), and potentially other data repositories, such as other data store 220, which may store other network routing and management data, such as routing tables i.e., storing, at the first wireless router, credential data associated with establishing, at least partly in response to termination of the network connection, a wireless connection with a secondary wireless access point);
determining that the network connection has terminated (Para 32, during migration to new router 140 that replaces router 136, the router service detection module 236 may receive an indication that router 136 is out of service or no longer exists i.e., network connection is terminated);
sending, to the second wireless router, instruction data representing an instruction (Para 33, The router migration module 217 then connects to the new wireless router to replace router 136 that is out of service or no longer exists i.e., sending, to the second wireless router, instruction data representing an instruction)
establishing, using the credential data, the wireless connection between the first wireless router and the secondary WAP (Para 33, The router migration module 217 provides, via the connection to the new router 140, Internet connectivity to device A 130, device B 132 and device C 134 connected to the intermediate router 118 without reconnection, reactivation or reconfiguration of device A 130, device B 132 and device C 134 to obtain the Internet connectivity. In particular, device A 130, device B 132 and device C 134 may remain activated and configured to be connected to intermediate router 118, even during migration of router 136 to a new router 140 i.e., establishing, using the credential data, the wireless connection between the first wireless router and the secondary WAP).
Rodriguez does not specifically teach
scan for available wireless networks in the environment;
scanning, by the first wireless router, for available wireless networks in the environment;
determining, based on at least one of the sending or the scanning, that a secondary WAP is available.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turon teaches mesh network commissioning and teaches
sending to the second wireless router instruction data representing an instruction to scan for available wireless networks in the environment (Para 81, The border router 202 forwards the petition 622 to the leader 216. For example, after the commissioning device 210 is authenticated and identified, the border router 202 unicasts to the leader 216, a Commissioner Petition Request message 620 (e.g., COMM_PET.req). The Commissioner Petition Request is forwarded, by the border router 202 to the leader 216, as request 622 (e.g., as the LEAD_PET.req) requesting that the commissioning device 210 be accepted as the active commissioning device 210 for the mesh network 100 i.e., sending to the second wirless router instruction data representing an instruction to scan for available wireless networks in the environment);
scanning, by the first wireless router, for available wireless networks in the environment (Para 78, The border router 202 may make the advertisement in response to a multicast request (i.e., a scan or a query) within a service discovery protocol scanning, by the first wireless router, for available wireless networks in the environment);
determining, based on at least one of the sending or the scanning, that a secondary WAP is available (Para 82, The leader 216 determines if there is an active commissioner for the mesh network 100. If there is an active commissioner, the leader rejects the petition from the commissioning device 210. If there is no active commissioner for the mesh network 100, the leader 216 accepts the petition from the commissioning device 210. The leader 216 updates its copy if the commissioning dataset to reflect that there is an active commissioner and the identity of the commissioning device 210. The leader 216 sets a permit-join flag for the mesh network 100 to true. The leader 216 then propagates 624 the network data and the updated commissioning dataset to the mesh network 100, which indicates that the mesh network 100 is joinable i.e., determining, based on at least one of the sending or the scanning, that a secondary WAP is available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Rodriguez with the method of Turon so as to ensure commissioning techniques by limiting the quality of user experience for commissioning, the accuracy of joining a device to the correct mesh network, and provisioning device specific and application specific information into a device during commissioning (See Turon Para 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Rodriguez teaches wherein the secondary WAP is a mobile electronic device connected to a cellular network or a network device connected to the ISP with a wired connection or to another ISP (Para 12 and Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Rodriguez does not specifically teach detecting, by the first wireless router and after the establishing the wireless connection, that the network connection between the first wireless router and the ISP is available; and re-establishing the network connection at least partly in response to the detecting.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turon teaches the border router 202 advertises, on the external network interface, that the mesh network 100 is available for commissioning devices 210. The border router 202 may make the advertisement in response to a multicast request (i.e., a scan or a query) within a service discovery protocol. For example, the advertisement 602 may be done using any suitable service discovery, such as Multicast Domain Name Service (mDNS). Specifically, for wireless networks, the border routers 202 advertise a commissioning service using DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL). A lookup server would then respond with all the different wireless networks that are accessible, the network name of the mesh network 100 i.e., detecting, by the first wireless router and after the establishing the wireless connection, that the network connection between the first wireless router and the ISP is available; and re-establishing the network connection at least partly in response to the detecting (Para 78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Rodriguez with the method of Turon so as to ensure commissioning techniques by limiting the quality of user experience for commissioning, the accuracy of joining a device to the correct mesh network, and provisioning device specific and application specific information into a device during commissioning (See Turon Para 2).
Regarding Claim 6, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Rodriguez teaches wherein the first electronic device comprises a first wireless router of a wireless mesh network and the second electronic device comprises a second wireless router of the wireless mesh network (Fig. 1 and 2 and Para 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Rodriguez does not specifically wherein the first data comprises a service set identifier (SSID) associated with the secondary WAP and a password associated with the secondary WAP.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turon teaches the joiner router receives a message from the joining device requesting to join the mesh network. The message received from the joining device can include a device identifier that is usable to authenticate the joining device, which is authenticated using Password Authenticated Key Exchange by Juggling (J-PAKE) or any other suitable cipher suite, and the authentication is effective to establish a secure communication session between a commissioning device and the joining device i.e., the first data comprises a service set identifier (SSID) associated with the secondary WAP and a password associated with the secondary WAP (Para 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Rodriguez with the method of Turon so as to ensure commissioning techniques by limiting the quality of user experience for commissioning, the accuracy of joining a device to the correct mesh network, and provisioning device specific and application specific information into a device during commissioning (See Turon Para 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Rodriguez teaches wherein the secondary WAP comprises a first secondary WAP, and further comprising: receiving the first data at the first electronic device prior to termination of the network connection; receiving second data at the first electronic device prior to termination of the network connection, the second data comprising credentials associated with establishing a wireless connection with a second secondary WAP; storing the second data at the first electronic device; and receiving priority data indicating that the first secondary WAP is associated with a higher priority than the second secondary WAP (Para 32).
Regarding Claim 10, Rodriguez teaches wherein the establishing the wireless connection comprises establishing, using the first data, the wireless connection at least partly in response to determining that the first secondary WAP is associated with the higher priority than the second secondary WAP (Para 32).
Regarding Claim 13, Rodriguez teaches wherein the establishing the wireless connection comprises establishing, using the first data, the wireless connection between the secondary WAP and the second electronic device, and further comprising: establishing a connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device; storing, at the first electronic device, interface data indicating an interface associated with the connection between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Para 36).
Regarding Claim 21, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 23, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 24, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 25, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 28, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 in combination of 4, 11-12 and 26-27 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: The prior art reference fail to teach the limitation of “further comprising: receiving, from the second wireless router, first data indicating a first signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP measured by the second wireless router; determining second data indicating a second signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP measured by the first wireless router; determining that the second signal strength or quality is greater than the first signal strength or quality; and wherein the establishing the wireless connection comprises establishing the wireless connection at least partly in response to determining that the second signal strength or quality is greater than the first signal strength or quality and wherein the determining that the secondary WAP is available comprises determining that a first signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP, measured by the first wireless router, is greater than a first threshold value, the method further comprising: determining, after the establishing the wireless connection, that a second signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP, measured by the first wireless router, is less than a second threshold value, the second threshold value being less than the first threshold value; and sending, to the second wireless router, second instruction data to scan for the secondary WAP” OR “wherein the instruction data comprises first instruction data, the establishing comprises establishing, using the first data, the wireless connection between the secondary WAP and the first electronic device, and the method further comprises: determining, by the first electronic device, that a signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP is less than a threshold signal strength or quality; sending, to the second electronic device, second instruction data representing an instruction to scan for the secondary WAP; receiving an indication that the secondary device detected a signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP that is greater than a signal strength or quality associated with the secondary WAP at the first electronic device; and disconnecting, by the first electronic device, from the secondary WAP”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vos et al. Pub. No. US 20230309001 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING DEVICE TO DEVICE COMMUNICATION
Ghessassi Pub. No. US 20220046521 A1 - METROPOLITAN AREA MESH NETWORK WITH ADAPTIVE LOAD-BALANCED NODES
Fraser et al. Pub. No. US 20210014907 A1 - MESH CONFIGURATION NETWORK
Anantharaman et al. Pub. No. US 20190037613 A1 - PUBLIC WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE (WISP) WITH AUTHENTICATION SUPPORTED BY MOBILE NETWORK OPERATOR (MNO)
Moore et al. Pub. No. US 20170352244 A1 - RETROACTIVE MESSAGING FOR HANDLING MISSED SYNCHRONIZATION EVENTS
Amini et al. Pub. No. US 20170135145 A1 - AUTOMATED MESH POINT SURVEY AND GUIDED INSTALLATION FOR A WIRELESS MESH NETWORK
Huber et al. Pub. No. US 20170078885 A1 - INTERFACE FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT OF FEMTO CELL COVERAGE
Hsu et al. Pub. No. US 20100113027 A1 - Apparatus, Method, And Tangible Machine-Readable Medium Thereof For Callback Handover Procedure In A Femto-Network
Carother et al. Pub. No. US 20070274274 A1 - Open wireless access point detection and identification
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647