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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 2, 10 – 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (WO 2023039593 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of evaluating performance of a communication apparatus for a mobile computing device ([0027] discloses “The client devices may include, for example, smart phones or other mobile computing devices”), the method being performed by the communication apparatus and comprising:
performing communication with a base station (Figs. 1 & 2; elements 142, 200; [0054]; [0188] discloses “…the access nodes are implemented as base stations which establish communications links with user equipment devices, …”);
monitoring a fail event and determining a fail event score based on results of the monitoring ([0100] – [0102]; Fig. 6C; [0102] discloses “A failed to fast roam event latency score is assigned to each failed to fast roaming event. …”; wherein the fail event score is interpreted as the failed to fast roam event latency score; [0134], last line discloses “The stability classifier attempts to score each roaming event to detect certain undesirable roaming patterns, such as fail to fast roam events.”);
monitoring an attempt of a handover and determining a pingpong handover (PPHO) score based on the results of the monitoring ([0032] discloses “….detection of ping-pong or excessive roaming behavior …”);
monitoring a retention time within a shadow area and determining a service score based on the results of the monitoring ([0006] discloses “The techniques enable the NMS to automatically monitor and quantify roaming quality, which considers factors other than or in addition to roaming latency (e.g., the amount of time required for a client device to roam from a first AP to a second AP)….”; wherein the shadow area is interpreted as area between the two APs and retention time is interpreted is interpreted as time to roam from 1st AP to the 2nd AP; service score is interpreted as quantifying roaming quality);
and determining a final score based on the fail event score, the PPHO score, and the service score ([0032] discloses “The NMS may further combine one or more of the roaming quality assessments …”).
Lin does not explicitly disclose that a vehicle. However, as stated above, Lin discloses a mobile computing device, which could be a vehicle under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F, Obvious to Try & Obvious Variation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that the above method could also be applied to a vehicle, thereby allowing it to be used in a wider range of applications.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses determining the fail event score comprises:
generating a communication measurement log based on the results of the monitoring of the fail event; and determining the fail event score based on the communication measurement log ([0038] discloses “….NMS 150, and any other servers or devices attached to or forming part of network system 100 may include a system log or an error log module wherein each one of these devices records the status of the device including normal operational status and error conditions.”).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the final score is obtained by incorporating each of the fail event score, the PPHO score, and the service score at an arbitrary ratio and summing the fail event score, the PPHO score, and the service score ([0032] discloses “The NMS may further combine one or more of the roaming quality assessments …”; wherein the ratio is obvious to try, Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, that the ratio could be selected depending which score is most important (i.e. gets the larger weight).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 11 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 - 9, 13 - 19 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.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to quality when roaming:
Amini et al. (US 20170135018 A1) discloses roaming in a wireless mesh network.
Babiarz et al. (US 9077655 B2) discloses Traffic Management In Distributed Wireless Networks.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632