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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2024 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grant (US PGPUB 20240224194 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grant teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
detecting movement of an access point (AP) operating in standard power mode (fig. 18, paragraphs [0004], [0005] and [0104] lines (33-38) read as “Movement of the AP or router beyond a predetermined distance (e.g., 10 cm) will automatically be detected, wherein the access point supports AFC, which operates in standard power mode”); and in response to detecting the movement, modifying operation of the AP (paragraph [0105] lines (33-38) read as based on the detection of movement, the unit will revert to LPI mode).
Regarding claim 13, Grant teaches a computing device comprising: one or more memories collectively storing computer-executable instructions; see sections [0166] - [0168] read as the stored geographic location information in the memory portion of the device and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, see Fig 12 and section [0009] of Grant read as system includes a memory, and at least one processor, coupled to the memory.
detecting movement of an access point (AP) operating in standard power mode (fig. 18, paragraphs [0004], [0005] and [0104] lines (33-38) read as “Movement of the AP or router beyond a predetermined distance (e.g., 10 cm) will automatically be detected, wherein the access point supports AFC, which operates in standard power mode”); and in response to detecting the movement, modifying operation of the AP (paragraph [0105] lines (33-38) read as based on the detection of movement, the unit will revert to LPI mode).
Regarding claim 20, Grant teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions see sections [0010]- [0011] read as “a non-transitory computer readable medium includes computer executable instructions. “when collectively executed by one or more processors of a computing system cause the computing system cause the computing system to perform an operation the operation” see sections [0010] - [0012] and [0186] line [8-17] which teach (“ a computer program product including a tangible computer readable recordable storage medium (or multiple such media) with computer usable program code configured to implement the method steps indicated, when run on one or more processors.”)
detecting movement of an access point (AP) operating in standard power mode; (fig. 18, paragraphs [0004], [0005] and [0104] lines (33-38) read as “Movement of the AP or router beyond a predetermined distance (e.g., 10 cm) will automatically be detected, wherein the access point supports AFC, which operates in standard power mode”); and in response to detecting the movement, modifying operation of the AP (paragraph [0105] lines (33-38) read as based on the detection of movement, the unit will revert to LPI mode).
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Grant further teaches “further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP over a period of time, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports” Fig.18 and see sections [0108] lines (6-10) which teaches the movement of the AP is detected based on reports from AP. The AFC database has data contributed from the router itself, or some device connected to the router (wired or wireless), which will report the domain to that reporting location.
Regarding claim 3, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Grant further teaches wherein each of the one or more reports comprises at least one of
(i) a coordinate of the AP
(ii) a height of the AP,
(iii) an uncertainty region associated with the coordinate of the AP.
Regarding (i) the “coordinate of the AP”, see sections [0108] line (18-32) of Grant which teach (“The database is aware of the location of the router that has requested permission enter standard power mode, as well as the locations of all the surrounding 6 GHz incumbent devices. These incumbent devices may, for example, be on one day and off another. This aspect leads to the next requirement: the router (wired or wireless) typically must report its XYZ coordinates to the AFC database every 24 hours.”)
Regarding (ii) “a height of the AP”, see section[0005] which teach (“ The AFC process requires 95% confidence on the location of the wireless device (e.g., router or access point) including details on the longitude, latitude, and altitude from the ground (or from sea-level). And see section [0136] which teaches One or more embodiments employ the concept of AMSL—average mean sea level—in determining Z. Some commercial services such as NextNav determine the height of the router with respect to adjacent ground level.”).
Regarding claim 4, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 3. In addition, Grant further teaches “wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a distance between a first coordinate of the AP at a first point in time and a second coordinate of the AP at a second point in time is larger than a predefined uncertainty region”, see section [0130] line (15-26) which teaches (“A laser measurement device capture the distance from the current location to the ground edge of the premises, and is then used to capture the distance from edge of the premises to the router location. Multiple angles may require values of the router location from the GPS. And “Fig 18. Movement of the AP or router beyond a predetermined.”). read as (Detect movement of the AP based on comparing location reports of the AP).
Regarding claim 5, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 4 In addition, Grant further teaches “the predefined uncertainty region is larger than each of a first uncertainty region associated with the first coordinate of the AP and a second uncertainty region associated with the second coordinate of the AP.” see section [0108] lines (11-21), [0180] of Grant which teaches
“The location is reported to the AFC database with a certain area of certainty/uncertainty as well as XYZ coordinates and measurement method (ellipse, sphere) that was used to measure certainty/uncertainty. Once reported to the AFC database, there is some associated cloud-based processing. The larger the area of uncertainty, the more calculations are needed. The database is aware of the location of the router that has requested permission enter standard power mode, as well as the locations of all the surrounding 6 GHz incumbent devices.” Where the uncertainty region is larger than each coordinate AP”. read as (compare the location with the previous location and enhanced uncertainty region and determine whether the AP has moved (or is moving) from its previous location.)
Regarding claim 11, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1 Grant further teaches “wherein modifying operation of the AP comprises configuring the AP to operate low power indoor mode from standard power mode.” Fig.18 see sections [0116], [0148] of Grant read as an access point operating at a first, higher transmit power level and how subsequently reducing transmission power to a lower level, thereby disclosing operating in LPI mode from standard power mode as claimed through AFC.
Regarding claim 14, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 13 Grant further teaches “further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP over a period of time, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports” Fig.18 and see sections [0108] lines (6-10) which teaches the movement of the AP is detected based on reports from AP. The AFC database has data contributed from the router itself, or some device connected to the router (wired or wireless), which will report the domain to that reporting location.
Regarding claim 15, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 14 Grant further teaches “wherein each of the one or more reports comprises at least one of
(i) a coordinate of the AP (see sections [0108] line (18-32) of Grant which teach (“The database is aware of the location of the router that has requested permission enter standard power mode, as well as the locations of all the surrounding 6 GHz incumbent devices. These incumbent devices may, for example, be on one day and off another. This aspect leads to the next requirement: the router (wired or wireless) typically must report its XYZ coordinates to the AFC database every 24 hours.”)
(ii) a height of the AP (see section[0005] which teaches The AFC process requires 95% confidence on the location of the wireless device (e.g., router or access point) including details on the longitude, latitude, and altitude from the ground (or from sea-level). And see section [0136] which teaches One or more embodiments employ the concept of AMSL—average mean sea level—in determining Z. Some commercial services such as NextNav determine the height of the router with respect to adjacent ground level), or
(iii) an uncertainty region associated with the coordinate of the AP.
Regarding claim 16, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 15. Grant further teaches” wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a distance between a first coordinate of the AP at a first point in time and a second coordinate of the AP at a second point in time is larger than a predefined uncertainty region “see section [0130] line (15-26) (“A laser measurement device capture the distance from the current location to the ground edge of the premises, and is then used to capture the distance from edge of the premises to the router location. Multiple angles may require values of the router location from the GPS. And “Fig 18. Movement of the AP or router beyond a predetermined.”). read as (Detect movement of the AP based on comparing location reports of the AP).
Regarding claim 17, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Grant further teaches” the predefined uncertainty region is larger than each of a first uncertainty region associated with the first coordinate of the AP and a second uncertainty region associated with the second coordinate of the AP.” see sections [0108] lines (11-21), [0180] of Grant which teaches “The location is reported to the AFC database with a certain area of certainty/uncertainty as well as XYZ coordinates and measurement method (ellipse, sphere) that was used to measure certainty/uncertainty. Once reported to the AFC database, there is some associated cloud-based processing. The larger the area of uncertainty, the more calculations are needed. The database is aware of the location of the router that has requested permission enter standard power mode, as well as the locations of all the surrounding 6 GHz incumbent devices.” Where the uncertainty region is larger than each coordinate AP”.
Regarding claim 19, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Grant further teaches “wherein modifying operation of the AP comprises at least one of configuring the AP to operate low power indoor mode from standard power mode” Fig.18 see sections [0116], [0148] of Grant read as an access point operating at a first, higher transmit power level and how subsequently reducing transmission power to a lower level, thereby disclosing operating in LPI mode from standard power mode as claimed through AFC, but fails to teach or configuring the AP to operate in a different frequency band.” See section [0163] in Grant which teaches With regard to obtaining, from the database, approval for the transceiver device to operate in the high power mode, the AFC database or other similar database will utilize an appropriate algorithm (calculation engine 1817 discussed elsewhere) to determine available frequency and/or channel ranges with maximum permissible power and expiration time, in accordance with known principles.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant. (US PGPUB 20240224194 A1, hereinafter Grant) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhou (US PGPUB 20150018003 A1, hereby referred to as Zhou).
Regarding claim 6, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Grant fails to teaches a method “further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP indicating one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports.”
Zhou teaches further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP indicating one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports (a method Fig. 3 and Fig.4 see section [0005] which explicitly teach that the AP location is determined by the number of new neighbor access point address and reported by an AP).
Therefore, as Grant and Zhou both teach determining changing locations of access points and detection of neighbor access points and Zhou explicitly teaches the determining of access point movement based on the number of new neighbor Access Point detected by an AP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhou into the invention of Grant in order to reduce inaccurate location predictions and increased location prediction errors. and conventionality of using detecting new neighboring access point to determinate access point location period.
Regarding claim 7, Grant in view of Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Grant fails to teach “wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of neighboring APs that are different from a first report at a first point in time and a second report at a second point in time is greater than a threshold”.
Zhou teaches “wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of neighboring APs that are different from a first report at a first point in time and a second report at a second point in time is greater than a threshold “(see sections [0005] and [0027] lines (8-14) and Fig.2 and Fig.6 which explicitly teach that the AP location is determined by the number of new neighbor Access Point detected by an AP).
Therefore, as Grant and Zhou both teach, obtain a corresponding geographic location from a geographic information system server based on the service address. Associate a transceiver device with the geographic location. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhou into the invention of Grant in order to reduce inaccurate location predictions and location prediction errors.
Regarding claim 8, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1, However, Grant fails to teach “further comprising receiving one or more reports from one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports.”
Zhou teaches “further comprising receiving one or more reports from one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports.” See sections [0017] lines (8-11) which explicitly teach that Based on the wireless data from the scans, neighboring access point from a particular level are determined. Each neighboring access point appears together in a single scan used to create a wireless network model for that particular level and see section [0026] Using data from these scans, neighboring access points can be identified. For example, client device 103 may observe a set of available access points during a single scan of a particular level of indoor space 201. Each of the access points in this set may be considered "neighbors" of the other access points in the set. see Fig.3 and Fig.4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of neighboring access point of Zhou into the invention of Grant in order to obtaining measurement reports from plurality of neighboring access point. Specifically, Zhou teaches that neighboring Aps transmit information strength and status information to support network coordination.
Regarding claim 18, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 13, However, Grant fails to teach a method “further comprising further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP indicating one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein: the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports; and detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of neighboring APs that are different from a first report at a first point in time and a second report at a second point in time is greater than a threshold.”.
Zhou teaches a method further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP indicating one or more neighboring APs associated with the AP, wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports (a method Fig. 3 and Fig.4 see section [0005] which explicitly teach that the AP location is determined by the number of new neighbor access point address and reported by an AP).
wherein the movement of the AP is detected based on the one or more reports (Fig.18 and see sections [0108] lines (6-10) which teaches the movement of the AP is detected based on reports from AP. The AFC database has data contributed from the router itself, or some device connected to the router (wired or wireless), which will report the domain to that reporting location.)
wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of neighboring APs that are different from a first report at a first point in time and a second report at a second point in time is greater than a threshold (see sections [0005] and [0027] lines (8-14) and Fig.2 and Fig.6 which explicitly teach that the AP location is determined by the number of new neighbor Access Point detected by an AP).
Therefore, as Grant and Zhou both teach, obtain a corresponding geographic location from a geographic information system server based on the service address, associate a transceiver device with the geographic location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhou into the invention of Grant in order to reduce inaccurate location predictions and location prediction errors.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant. (US PGPUB 20240224194 A1) and Zhou (US PGPUB 20150018003 A1, hereinafter Zhou) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of VENKATRAMAN et al. (US PGPUB 20160249315 A1, hereby referred to as VENKATRAMAN et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Grant and Zhou teach all the limitations of claim 8, However, Grant and Zhou fail to teach “wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of the one or more reports received over a period of time is greater than a threshold.”
Venkatraman teaches “wherein detecting movement of the AP comprises determining that a number of the one or more reports received over a period of time is greater than a threshold.”
See section [0031] which explicitly teach that, the location server monitors detection reports associated with the wireless access point (AP), and when the AP is not detected in a number of reports exceeding a predefine threshold, the location server updates its stored information related to the AP, such as modifying the AP information as inactive or relocated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of threshold associated with number of reports to move access point of Venkatraman into the invention of Grant and Zhou in order to enhance movement detection accuracy and improve reliability by reducing false positive caused by transient or short-duration signal variations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant. (US PGPUB 20240224194 A1, hereinafter Grant) in view of SHRIVASTAVA AVINASH (WO 2022046346 A1, hereby referred to as SHRIVASTAVA AVINASH).
Regarding claim 10, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Grant fails to teach “further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP, each report comprising fine timing measurement data,”
SHRIVASTAVA AVINASH teaches “further comprising receiving one or more reports from the AP, each report comprising fine timing measurement data,” Fig.5 and see section [00178] read as transmitting a request message to a WIFI access point to civic location information, and receiving from the WIFI access point, a Fine Time Measurement (FTM) frame that carries civic location data identifying the physical location of the WIFI access point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of fine timing measurement (FTM) of SHRIVASTAVA AVINASH into the invention of Grant in order to improve positional accuracy and enhance reliability of movement detection, since FTM measurements provide precise ranging information.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant. (US PGPUB 20240224194 A1, hereinafter Grant) in view of Ansley et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0367020 A1, hereinafter Ansley).
Regarding claim 12, Grant teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Grant fails to explicitly teach “wherein modifying operation of the AP comprises configuring the AP to operate in a different frequency band.”
However, Ansley teaches “wherein modifying operation of the AP comprises configuring the AP to operate in a different frequency band.” (paragraph 54, read as initiate operation to change operational parameters of the second AFC system, which includes changing the channel of the AP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ansley into the invention of Grant in order to protect other registered services already operating on particular frequencies from harmful interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTIBEN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 alternate Friday off.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/ARTIBEN JAIMIN PATEL/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645