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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 1/2/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oerton et al., (US 2013/0028245), (hereinafter, Oerton) in view of Lloyd (US 11,356,909), (hereinafter, Lloyd) and further in view of Carreira (US 2019/0230525), (hereinafter, Carreira).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Oerton discloses a system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium configured for adjusting attachment of a wireless gateway device, the system comprising: one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
collect location coordinates for radio frequency telemetry data from a wireless gateway device (= AP 114 may send a request for its location data, see [0073-74]);
adjust a capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to a wireless network (= once radio frequency transmission requirements are identified for the determined location, AP 114 can format its transmission to conform to at least some of such requirements…once the transmission parameters are set, AP 114 functions as a typical AP, with its known location data, see [0085]).
Oerton explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“determine from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device is outside geofencing coordinates for a fixed location associated with the wireless gateway device; and
based on determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device is outside the geofencing coordinates for the fixed location” and
“wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device;
determine a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”.
However, Lloyd, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“determine from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device is outside geofencing coordinates for a fixed location associated with the wireless gateway device; and
based on determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device is outside the geofencing coordinates for the fixed location”(= gateway device 110 may implement a scan based on the location of the gateway device 110 being outside or within a geofence or based on the location of the gateway device 110 corresponding to a particular geolocation, see col. 40, line 64- col. 41, line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lloyd with Oerton for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes gateway device that could identify one or more preferred networks.
The combination of Oerton and Lloyd explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device”; and
“determine a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”.
However, Carreira, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the claimed limitation of:
“wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device”; and “determine a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”
(= OBU/Mobile AP may also provide geo-location capabilities, see [0035, 0041, 0070 and 0195]; network may comprises Mobile AP and fixed AP, see [0192]; whereby the mobile and fixed characteristic of AP is being associated with the “category”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Carreira with Oerton and Lloyd for the benefit of achieving a communication system that include fixed and mobile access points that provides connectivity for the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, as mentioned in claims 1 and 15, Oerton further disclose the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein the one or more hardware processors are further configured by machine-readable instructions to determine a change in occupant for the fixed location (= if loss of connection to a particular device 110 is detected, see, [0089]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, as mentioned in claims 2 and 16, Oerton further disclose the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises preventing the wireless gateway device from attaching to the wireless network (= loss of connection, see [0089]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, as mentioned in claims 2 and 16, Oerton further disclose the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing the fixed location to a new fixed location for the wireless gateway device (see, [0089]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, as mentioned in claims 2 and 19, Oerton explicitly fails to disclose the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing a wireless network subscription for the wireless gateway device.
However, Lloyd, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing a wireless network subscription for the wireless gateway device (see col. 37, lines 16-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lloyd with Oerton and Carreira for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes gateway device that could identify one or more preferred networks.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, as mentioned in claims 1 and 15, Oerton further disclose the system/ non-transient computer-readable storage medium wherein the fixed location is a known subscriber physical address of the wireless gateway device (see, [0073]).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 6, Oerton further disclose the system wherein the fixed location for the wireless gateway device is maintained in a wireless gateway device profile (see, [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Oerton discloses method for adjusting attachment of a wireless gateway device, the method comprising:
collecting location coordinates for radio frequency telemetry data from a wireless gateway device (= AP 114 may send a request for its location data, see [0073-74]);
adjusting a capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to a wireless network (= once radio frequency transmission requirements are identified for the determined location, AP 114 can format its transmission to conform to at least some of such requirements…once the transmission parameters are set, AP 114 functions as a typical AP, with its known location data, see [0085]).
Oerton explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device satisfies a distance threshold for a fixed location associated with the wireless gateway device; and based on determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device satisfies a distance threshold from the fixed location”
“device, wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device”; and
“determining a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”.
However, Lloyd, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device satisfies a distance threshold for a fixed location associated with the wireless gateway device; and based on determining from the location coordinates the wireless gateway device satisfies a distance threshold from the fixed location ”(= gateway device 110 may implement a scan based on the location of the gateway device 110 being outside or within a geofence or based on the location of the gateway device 110 corresponding to a particular geolocation, see col. 40, line 64- col. 41, line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lloyd with Oerton for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes gateway device that could identify one or more preferred networks.
The combination of Oerton and Lloyd explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“device, wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device”; and
“determining a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”.
However, Carreira, which is an analogous art equivalently disclose the claimed limitation of:
““device, wherein the location coordinates comprise at least a location most used by the wireless gateway device and a last location associated with the wireless gateway device”; and “determining a category for the wireless gateway device based on the location most used and the last location associated with the wireless gateway device”
(= OBU/Mobile AP may also provide geo-location capabilities, see [0035, 0041, 0070 and 0195]; network may comprises Mobile AP and fixed AP, see [0192]; whereby the mobile and fixed characteristic of AP is being associated with the “category”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Carreira with Oerton and Lloyd for the benefit of achieving a communication system that include fixed and mobile access points that provides connectivity for the system.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 8, Oerton further disclose that the method further comprising determining a change in occupant for the fixed location(= if loss of connection to a particular device 110 is detected, see, [0089]).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 9, Oerton further disclose the method wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises preventing the wireless gateway device from attaching to the wireless network (= loss of connection, see [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 9, Oerton further disclose the method wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing the fixed location to a new fixed location for the wireless gateway device (= loss of connection, see [0089]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 9, Oerton explicitly fails to disclose the method wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing a wireless network subscription for the wireless gateway device.
However, Lloyd, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the method wherein adjusting the capability of the wireless gateway device to attach to the wireless network comprises changing a wireless network subscription for the wireless gateway device (see col. 37, lines 16-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lloyd with Oerton and Carreira for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes gateway device that could identify one or more preferred networks.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 8, Oerton further disclose the method wherein the fixed location is a known subscriber physical address of the wireless gateway device (see, [0073]).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 13, Oerton further disclose the method wherein the fixed location for the wireless gateway device is maintained in a wireless gateway device profile (see, [0072]).
CONCLUSION
3. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.