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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2024 has been placed in record and considered by the examiner.
Summary
This action is in reply to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/28/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are pending.
Claims 10-21 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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, 3, 6-7, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok et al. (US 20180233136 A1, hereinafter ‘TOROK’) in view of Sun et al. (US 20170094581 A1, hereinafter ‘SUN’) with evidenced by Li et al. (US 20240015585 A1, hereinafter ‘LI’).
Regarding claim 1, TOROK teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing device (
Fig. 1A Wireless Access Point (WAP) 117), cause the computing device to:
operate as a first software-enabled access point (SoftAP) to provide access to a network for a first client device, a second client device, and a third client device (
Fig. 1 A Devices 104A…104D become online or connected to WAP 117 for communication with Remote System 114 via WAP 117,
[0029] The discovery process shown in FIG. 1A is configured to assist in the sharing of information between devices 104 (e.g., communication between the devices 104) that are registered to a user. For example, when an audio playback device 104 first boots and comes online, the device 104 can send a device identifier 107 to a remote system 114.
[0033] The example environment 106 of FIGS. 1A and 1B is shown as including the audio playback devices 104(1), 104(2), 104(3), and 104(4) (collectively 104), also labeled as devices “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”….
[0035] FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate that the devices 104 may couple with the remote system 114 over the network 116. FIGS. 1A and 1B also show that the wireless access point (WAP) 117 may enable the coupling of the individual devices 104 to network devices of the network 116.);
transmit a request to the second client device and the third client device (
[0031] The remote system 114 can send messages ….. to the devices 104 in the environment 106 ….. For example, a message 124 received by the device 104(3) (or “device C”) from the remote system 114 may include the device identifiers 107 (e.g., the IP addresses) of the other devices 104(1), 104(2), and 104(4) (or “devices A, B, and D”) in the environment 106 so that the device 104(3) is made aware of the other devices 104 and knows how to communicate with them using the device identifiers 107 (e.g., IP addresses).
[0084 The designation of a device 104 in the environment 106 as a soft WAP may be based on any suitable factor or metric, including, for example, a signal strength measurement (e.g., an RSSI value) between the device 104 and the local WAP 117, and/or signal strength measurements between respective pairs of devices 104 in the environment 106.]
(Construed that WAP 116 transmits message to devices 104, see throughput test order 126, to initiate throughput tests, the message originated or instructed by the remote system 114)),
wherein the request is to instruct the second and third client devices to scan the first client device (
Fig. 1B, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0041] the remote system 114 can send a message to a particular device 104 in the to-be-formed group of devices 104 to initiate the throughput test…
[0042] Prior to initiating the throughput test, a throughput test order 126 may be determined. The throughput test order 126 indicates which device 104 in the to-be-formed group is to be tested as an audio distribution master for individual rounds of the throughput test. The throughput test order 126 is determined according to respective scores that are assigned to individual devices 104 based on one or more factors or metrics, ….. one of possibly several factors on which the scores can be based comprises a signal strength 128 (e.g., Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value …. between the respective audio playback device 104 and the WAP 117 in the environment 106. In some embodiments, the signal strength 128 value reported by a given device 104 may be measured by the device 104 …. The multiple signal strength measurements that are averaged to calculate the signal strength 128 value can represent measurements that are made over relatively recent period of time at a time when the signal strength 128 value is to be reported to the remote system 114, or to a different device in the environment 106. This is based on the notion that a higher signal strength between the audio playback device 104 and the WAP 117 is an indicator that the audio playback device 104 will perform well as an audio distribution master device (e.g., send audio data to one or more slave devices 104 (in some cases simultaneously to multiple slave devices 104) at a suitable throughput, such as a throughput at or above 512 kilobits per second (kbps)), seeing as how a higher signal strength 128 between a device 104 and the WAP 117 likely corresponds to a higher bandwidth at the device 104 for distributing audio data to the remaining devices in the group.
[0044] the throughput test is designed to conduct individual “rounds” for individual devices 104, according to the throughput test order 126, measuring data throughput at one or more slaves during an individual round.
Fig. 7, Devices B and D are connected to network 16 via device C as master which is also connected to WAP 117,
[0084] The hybrid topology 700 is used to illustrate the following example technique of a slave device dynamically switching between receiving audio data via a local WAP 117 and via one of the devices 104 in the group 316 acting as a soft WAP. FIG. 7 shows an example where device C (or device 104(3)) has been configured to act as a soft WAP in the hybrid topology 700.……. The designation of a device 104 in the environment 106 as a soft WAP may be based on any suitable factor or metric, including, for example, a signal strength measurement (e.g., an RSSI value) between the device 104 and the local WAP 117, and/or signal strength measurements between respective pairs of devices 104 in the environment 106.
Fig. 10, [0140] FIG. 10 is a pictorial flow diagram of an illustrative process 1000 for configuring a slave device to access audio data from a master device via a soft WAP or a WAP in a hybrid topology, depending on respective signal strength values as measured between the soft WAP and the WAP.
[0141] At 1002, a slave device, such as the slave device D (or device 104(4)), may determine a first signal strength 128(1) value (e.g., a first RSSI value) between the slave device 104(4) and another audio playback device 104(3) (e.g., device C) acting as the soft WAP in a hybrid topology 700.
(From Fig. 7, and Fig. 10. It is construed client device 4 or D and client device 2 or B are similarly instructed to scan client device C to select client device C as the master));
receive a scan result from the second and third client devices, wherein the scan result indicates connection strengths of the second and third client devices relative to the first client device (
[0084] as shown in FIG. 7 …. The designation of a device 104 in the environment 106 as a soft WAP may be based on any suitable factor or metric, including, for example, a signal strength measurement (e.g., an RSSI value) between the device 104 and the local WAP 117, and/or signal strength measurements between respective pairs of devices 104 in the environment 106.
[0142] At 1004, the slave device (e.g., device D 104(4)) may determine a second signal strength 128(2) value (e.g., a second RSSI value) between the slave device 104(4) and the local WAP 117 in the environment 106.
[0143] At 1006, a determination can be made as to whether the first signal strength 128(1) value is greater than the second signal strength 128(2) value (or greater than the second signal strength 128(2) value by more than a threshold amount). This determination at 1006 may be made …. by another device, such as a computing device 120 of the remote system 114 after the signal strength values 128(1)/(2) are sent to the remote system 114 for comparison.
[0144] If it is determined at 1006 that the first signal strength 128(1) value is greater than the second signal strength 128(2) value, the process 1000 follows the “yes” route from 1006 to 1008 where the slave device 104(4) (or device D) is configured to receive audio data from the audio playback device 104(3) (e.g., device C) acting as the soft WAP.
(Based on Fig. 7 and Fig. 9, it is construed that both client devices B and D send scan result to WAP 117 for computing device 120 of the remote system 114 for comparing RSSI values)).
TOROK does not explicitly disclose identify, based on the scan result, the second client device to operate as a second SoftAP to provide access to the network for the first client device such that a communication between the first client device and the network is routed via the first SoftAP and the second SoftAP.
In an analogous art, SUN teaches identify, based on the scan result, the second client device to operate as a second SoftAP to provide access to the network for the first client device such that a communication between the first client device and the network is routed via the first SoftAP and the second SoftAP (
Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0034] Wi-Fi of the mobile device typically functions as a station or a soft AP, or in P2P.
[0036] The soft AP refers to the mobile device functioning as a wireless access point so that the soft AP-enabled mobile device may act as a router enabling an access of another station to the wireless network.
[0037] The P2P (Peer-to-Peer), also referred to as Wi-Fi Direct, may enable two Wi-Fi devices to be connected directly with and to communicate with each other without any wireless access point.
[0047] The step 103 is to enable a packet forward function to enable a data packet to be forwarded between the different nodes of Wi-Fi in the mobile device.
[0053] As illustrated in FIG. 2, if Wi-Fi has been connected with the active AP, then the relay instruction may be sent to the Wi-Fi module to start Wi-Fi relaying.
[0105] The step 106 is to enable the portable softAP node ….. to connect the mobile device with one or more electronic devices, when the wireless access point is a base station and the mobile device is connected with the base station through the mobile communication data node.
[0108] If the portable hotspot softAP node is enabled, then a softAP instruction may be sent using the SSID and the password to enable the softAP node to be connected with one or more electronic devices.
[0119] the relay or the portable hotspot may be enabled as needed to …. may be adjusted in position to the strength of a signal to thereby greatly enhance the relayed wireless signal.
(It is obvious that decision for using the Fig. 2 Mobile Device or Station as Relay or SoftAP is based on a scanning or signal strength result since data between AP or a first softAP and stations 1-3 are being relayed by the Mobile Device or Station getting connected to Stations 1-3.
See also Fig. 3.
Further, the WAP 117 of TOROK Fig. 7 or AP of SUN Fig. 2 can be a softAP if arranged as such as in a multi-hop Wi-Fi network for range extension as evidenced by LI Fig. 4, [0003].
LI [0003] In a wireless network, when there is a long distance between a station and an access point, the communication range of the access point can be extended by turning on a repeater device in a repeater mode, …. through a SoftAP port of the relay device.
[0048] As shown in FIG. 4, the mesh network system 100 comprises an access point 200 and a plurality of network nodes, ……. the plurality of network nodes comprise a plurality of relay nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of using relay or mobile softAP for group of electronic devices of SUN to the technique of identifying a master device acting as a soft wireless access point (WAP) for slave devices of TOROK and LI in order to provide a method for improving operational flexibility greatly enhancing wireless signal (SUN: [0119]).
Regarding claim 3, TOROK, in view of SUN with evidence by LI, teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 1, storing further instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to:
evaluate network performance for each one of the first client device, the second client device, and the third client device,
calculate a first weighted connectivity score for each client device based on two or more normalized indications of connectivity quality, and
identify the first client device as a client device having a lowest first weighted connectivity score (
See Fig. 1B, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0042, 0044] cited for claim 1.
[0042] score based on averaged RSSI measurement and throughput test.
[0044] the throughput test is designed to conduct individual “rounds” for individual devices 104.).
Regarding claim 6, TOROK, in view of SUN with evidence by LI, teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 1, wherein receiving a scan result from the second and third client devices comprises receiving a second weighted connectivity score based on two or more indications of connectivity quality relative to the first client device (
See Fig. 1B, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0042, 0044] cited for claim 1.
[0042] score based on averaged RSSI measurement and throughput test.
[0044] the throughput test is designed to conduct individual “rounds” for individual devices 104.).
Regarding claim 7, TOROK, in view of SUN with evidence by LI, teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 1, storing further instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to:
transmit, to the second client device, instructions to enable the second SoftAP while remaining connected to the first SoftAP; and
transmit, to the first client device, instructions to connect to the second SoftAP (
See Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 10 cited in claim 1.
It is obvious from round of rounds of RSSI and throughput tests from individual devices 104 as illustrated by Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 and then selection of a Soft WAP in Fig. 10, that a device 104 can be instructed to connect to second SoftAP while connected with fist SoftAP as a user arrangement).
Regarding claim 21, TOROK teaches computing device (Fig. 1, Fig. 1A Wireless Access Point (WAP) 117), comprising:
memory; and
a processor to (Fig. 1A Fig. 1B, Wireless Access Point (WAP) 117, implicit),:
Further claim 21 is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 1 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted mutatis mutandis of claim 1 and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Claims 2, 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torok et al. (US 20180233136 A1, hereinafter ‘TOROK’) in view of Sun et al. (US 20170094581 A1, hereinafter ‘SUN’) with evidenced by Li et al. (US 20240015585 A1, hereinafter ‘LI’) and with further in view of Takeda et al. (US 20110249622 A1, hereinafter ‘TAKEDA’).
Regarding claim 2, TOROK, in view of SUN with evidence by LI, teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 1.
TOROK, SUN and LI do not explicitly disclose storing further instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to:
In an analogous art, TAKEDA teaches detect that a number of client devices exceeds a network threshold; and
transmit the request to the second and third client devices (
Fig. 7, block 207 [Wingdings font/0xE8]NO[Wingdings font/0xE8] Block 219 [Wingdings font/0xE8] Block 221[Wingdings font/0xE8]Block 223,
[0033] a function called "Soft AP" of emulating the function of APs ….
[0055] the connection utility 155 first determines whether it is possible to connect to the AP 20 based on the threshold connectable number and the present total connected number of the AP 20 having a strong radio field intensity by referring to the traffic table 157 …. [0056] When it is determined in block 209 that the present total connected number exceeds the threshold connectable number or when it is determined in block 211 that the sum of the average traffic exceeds the threshold traffic, the STA 45 determines that it is not possible to connect to the AP 20 considering the load balance between the APs 20 and 30, and the flow proceeds to block 219. In block 219, ….. When the present total connected number of the AP 30 is equal to or smaller than the threshold connectable number, the flow proceeds to block 221 …. the STA 45 determines that it is possible to connect to the AP 30 considering the load balance, and the flow proceeds to block 223.
(It is obvious from the above that the decision of connecting or offloading a STA to a different AP identified can be made in currently serving AP, instead of STA since the number of connections is given by the AP, detecting the number of currently connecting STAs exceeding a threshold, see [0007])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the technique of load balancing based on number of connected STAs to APs of TAKEDA to the technique of identifying a master device acting as a soft wireless access point (WAP) for slave devices of TOROK, SUN and LI in order to provide a method for improving overall transmission rate (TAKEDA: [0007, 0068]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 24, 26 and 30-31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 4, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the two or more indications of connectivity quality include:
a received signal strength indicator (RSSI);
a peer-to-peer (P2P) ping response time; or a P2P packet drop rate.
Regarding claim 5, the claim being dependent on claim 4 is also interpreted same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, storing further instructions that, when executed by the computing device, cause the computing device to:
transmit, to the first client device, a request to identify a preferred radio frequency (RF) channel having a least amount of congestion among a plurality of RF channels; and
receive, from the first client device, an indication of the preferred RF channel.
Regarding claim 9, the claim being dependent on claim 8 is also interpreted same as claim 8.
Regarding claim 24, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the computing device of claim 23, wherein the processor is to:
calculate the first weighted connectivity score based on a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a first peer-to-peer (P2P) ping response time, and a first P2P packet drop rate included in the first scan result; and
calculate the second weighted connectivity score based on a second RSSI, a second P2P ping response time, and a second P2P packet drop rate included in the second scan result.
Regarding claim 26, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the computing device of claim 21, wherein the processor is to:
transmit a third request to the third client device, the third request instructing the third client device to share a preferred radio frequency (RF) channel associated with the third client device;
receive an indication of the preferred RF channel from the third client device; and
transmit the instruction to the first client device such that the instruction causes the first client device to operate as the second SoftAP in the preferred RF channel associated with the third client device.
Regarding claim 30, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the method of claim 29, comprising:
calculating the first weighted connectivity score based on a first received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a first peer-to-peer (P2P) ping response time, and a first P2P packet drop rate included in the first scan result; and
calculating the second weighted connectivity score based on a second RSSI, a second P2P ping response time, and a second P2P packet drop rate included in the second scan result.
Regarding claim 31, TOROK, SUN, LI, TAKEDA or any prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to teach the method of claim 27, comprising:
transmitting a third request to the third client device, the third request instructing the third client device to share a preferred radio frequency (RF) channel associated with the third client device;
receiving an indication of the preferred RF channel from the third client device; and
transmitting the instruction to the first client device such that the instruction causes the first client device to operate as the second SoftAP in the preferred RF channel associated with the third client device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sabella et al. (US 20240015203 A1), describing APPLICATION COMPUTATION OFFLOADING FOR MOBILE EDGE COMPUTING
Siraj et al. (US 20210068014 A1), describing TECHNIQUES AND ARCHITECTURES FOR COLLABORATIVE SCANNING BY OFFLOADING SCAN FUNCTIONALITY TO CLIENT DEVICES
Deparisse; M. (US 20200196191 A1), describing OVER-THE-AIR (OTA) WI-FI OFFLOADING
Chari et al. (US 20190373464 A1), describing SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONFIGURING AN EXTENDER DEVICE
Neelakandan et al. (US 20190069234 A1), describing NEIGHBOR AWARENESS NETWORKING TETHERING
Jana et al. (US 20180343200 A1), describing CONGESTION CONTROL AND MESSAGE ANALYSIS IN A WIRELESS MESH NETWORK
Balasubramanian et al. (US 20170070543 A1), describing IMS OVER SOFT AP ADMISSION CONTROL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Sirotkin et al. (US 20160255533 A1), describing SYSTEMS, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR TRAFFIC OFFLOADING
Shumon et al. (US 20160021007 A1), describing SERVER MEDIATED PEER-TO-PEER COMMUNICATION OFFLOADING FROM NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE
Baboescu et al. (US 20150304922 A1), describing Wlan Offloading Using Offload Preference Indication Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAH M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8951. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:30PM PST.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at 571-272-7919. 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.
/SHAH M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413