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 .
The following is a non-final office action in response to the RCE filed 05/21/2026. Amendments received on 05/21/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub 2016/0323781) in view of Hatton et al. (US 11, 539,595) and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US Pub 2017/0272911).
As of claims 1, 10 and 19, Yang discloses a network management system comprising:
one or more processors: a memory comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors (inherent in the controller cluster to perform the disclosed features), to cause the network management system to:
obtain network data indicative of communication relationships between the plurality of Aps (see paragraphs [0024], [0037], “each AP in the network reports its RF-neighborhood information to the controller cluster”);
generate, based on the network data, a network graph (see paragraph [0038] “Based on the RF-neighborhood information, the lead cluster manager can construct an adjacency graph of APs and/or radios);
group, based on the network graph, the plurality of APs into a plurality of clusters of APs; and uniquely assign, to each of the plurality of clusters, an identifier of a plurality of identifiers that is indicative of a deployed location of a cluster of the plurality of clusters with respect to the site (see paragraph [0038], “Based on the RF-neighborhood information, the lead cluster manager can construct an adjacency graph of APs and/or radios, and perform an algorithm to assign adjacent APs in the RF neighborhood to different controllers in the controller cluster. In the system of Yang assigning of the plurality of access points to a controller is interpreted as grouping the access points to a cluster. Each cluster of access points are assigned to a controller (C1, C2, C3), which is interpreted as uniquely assigning, to each of the cluster of access points (AP1, AP5, AP7, for example) an identifier (controller name C1) of a plurality of identifiers (C1, C2, C3, for example) that is indicative of deployed location of a cluster (location of the AP1, AP5, AP7); see paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
Base on the explanation given above it is the Examiner’s position that Yang discloses the invention as claimed, however in order to further support the Examiner’s assertion, Hatton discloses that it is well known in the art of a network systems, to perform the function of grouping plurality of nodes into a plurality of clusters and assigning unique cluster ID to each of the cluster (see fig. 1; also see abstract).
However, combination of Yang and Hatton does not explicitly disclose uniquely assign, to each of the plurality of clusters, an identifier of a plurality of identifiers that is indicative of a deployed location within a floor or a building of a cluster of the plurality of clusters with respect to the site.
Agrawal discloses the function of uniquely assigning to access point clusters an AP cluster identifier 620, location coordinates 615 of the cluster and environmental context identifier 623, which indicates a deployed location within a floor or a building of a cluster of the plurality of clusters with respect to a site (see figs. 6B, 6C and paragraphs [0023], [0090]- [0092] and [0130]).
From the teaching of Agrawal, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Yang and Hatton to uniquely assign, to each cluster, an identifier indicative of a deployed location within a floor or a building as taught by Agrawal in order to assign access point clusters to a specific location.
As of claims 6 and 15, Yang discloses to generate the network graph indicative of neighbor relationships between the plurality of APs based on received signal strength indicator (RSSI) values of wireless signals transmitted between the plurality of Aps ( Based on the RF-neighborhood information (signal strength), the lead cluster manager can construct an adjacency graph of APs and/or radios, and perform an algorithm to assign adjacent APs in the RF neighborhood to different controllers in the controller cluster (see paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
As of claims 7 and 16, Agrawal discloses that the identifier of the plurality of identifiers comprises one or more of: a number representing a particular floor of a multi-floor structure of the site; a color representing a particular floor of a multi-floor structure of the site; a label representing a particular floor of a multi-floor structure of the site; a number representing a particular building of a multi-building site; a color representing a particular building of a multi-building site; or a label representing a particular building of a multi-building site (via building name, floor number; see fig. 6B; also see paragraphs [0023], [0063] and [0130]).
Claims 2-5, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Hatton, Agrawal and further in view of Mahimkar et al. (US Pub 2018/0167277).
As of claims 2-5, 11-14 and 20, combination of Yang, Hatton and Agrawal discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however Yang does not explicitly disclose the use of Laplacian matrix to group the access points.
Mahimkar discloses the steps of generating a Laplacian matrix based on the network graph, wherein the Laplacian matrix is generated based on a difference between a degree matrix including information of a degree of each node in the network graph and an adjacency matrix including information of an adjacency of nodes in the network graph; and group, based on applying a k-means clustering algorithm to the Laplacian matrix, the plurality of APs into k clusters based on the neighbor relationships between the plurality of Aps (see paragraphs [0087]-[0088]).
From the teaching of Mahimkar it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Yang, Hatton and Agrawal to use Laplacian matrix as taught by Mahimkar in order to find groups of tightly connected access points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kachemir (US Pub 2020/0382981) discloses systems and/or methods of grouping access points into a group/cluster and assigning group/cluster identifier (see paragraph [0138]).
Haeupler (US Pub 2016/0105323) discloses a network system wherein a plurality of nodes are grouped into a cluster and the cluster is assigned a unique identifier (see paragraph [0004]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights