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 .
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2025/0093920) in view of Filtsch et al. (US 2020/0146624).
Referring to Claim 1, Lee teaches a Wi-Fi access point (AP), comprising a proportional-integral-derivate (PID) controller (see paragraph 56 which shows a Wi-Fi access point connected to a PID controller); and memory 130 (fig. 1) storing an application configured to receive radio frequency (RF) data from a plurality of user devices (see paragraph 67 which shows PID controller part of electronic device 101 in fig. 1 where electronic device 101 in fig. 1 receives wireless signals from devices 102 and 104), and receiving updated RF data from the plurality of user devices after the plurality of user devices have moved to different locations in an environment (see paragraph 40 which shows a proximity sensor on the device to detect proximity of users external to the device where the proximity of an external device is dependent on the location of the device and any change in proximity implies updated data which includes the change in proximity).
Lee does not teach determining a setpoint for the PID controller based on the RF data, wherein the PID controller is configured to control a motor to adjust a position of an antenna based on the setpoint. Filtsch teaches determining a setpoint for the PID controller based on the RF data, wherein the PID controller is configured to control a motor to adjust a position of an antenna based on the setpoint (see paragraph 66 which shows the PID controller of the device causing the antenna of the device rotating in a direction to optimize signal quality where the orientation the antenna is instructed to end up is the setpoint). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Filtsch to the device of Lee in order to better optimize received signal quality by better ensuring optimum communication of wireless signals.
Claims 8 and 14 have similar limitations as claim 1.
Referring to Claims 2 and 9, Filtsch also teaches when adjusting the position of the antenna changes a location of a radiation pattern of the antenna (see paragraph 32 which shows the antenna communications involving electromagnetic radiation further noting that changing an orientation of the antenna is known in the art to change a radiation pattern of the antenna).
Referring to Claims 5 and 12, Filtsch also teaches the RF data comprising at least one of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) or a signal to noise ratio (SNR) corresponding to the plurality of user devices (see paragraph 64 which shows the measuring of received signal strength).
Referring to Claim 7, Filtsch also teaches determining an updated setpoint for the PID controller based on the updated RF data, wherein the updated setpoint is different from the setpoint, wherein the PID controller is configured to control the motor to adjust the position of the antenna based on the updated setpoint (see paragraph 64 which shows objects moving and altering orientation and the antennas adjusting accordingly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Filtsch to the device of Lee in order to better optimize received
Referring to Claim 16, Filtsch also teaches the motor disposed external to the Wi-Fi AP (see fig. 1D which shows device not part of a WiFi AP).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Filtsch and further in view of Palayur et al. (US 2023/0232242).
Referring to Claims 3 and 10, Lee and Filtsch do not teach the RF data indicating which of the plurality of user devices are within the radiation pattern of the antenna and which are outside of the radiation pattern. Palayur teaches the RF data indicating which of the plurality of user devices are within the radiation pattern of the antenna and which are outside of the radiation pattern (see paragraph 63 which shows the determining the location of a user device which implies determining whether the device is within or outside of the radiation pattern). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claims 4 and 11, Palayur also teaches wherein adjusting the position of the antenna moves the radiation pattern such that the radiation pattern covers more of the plurality of user devices (see paragraph 63 which shows the generation of radiation pattern based on the determinations relative to the incumbent systems/user devices and paragraphs 27 and 64 which shows the adjusting of the power and steer of the antennas in which a higher power implies a larger coverage of more devices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claims 6 and 13, Palayur also teaches wherein the RF data indicates locations of the plurality of user devices (see paragraph 63 which shows the determining the location of user devices 506A and 506B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claim 15, Palayur also teaches the motor disposed in the Wi-Fi AP (see paragraph 64 which shows steering of the antennas and paragraph 67 which shows calibration of antennas occurring on the WiFi AP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claim 17, Palayur also teches the antenna mounted to a side of the Wi-Fi AP (see antennas 403 on side of WiFi AP 402 in fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claim 18, Palayur also teaches the antenna and the Wi-Fi AP mounted to a common support (see antennas 403 on the WiFi AP 402 in fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claim 19, Palayur also teaches rotating the position of the antenna relative to the Wi-Fi AP (see paragraph 67 which shows calibration of antennas on the WiFi AP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Referring to Claim 20, Filtsch teaches when adjusting the position of the antenna changing a location of a radiation pattern of the antenna (see paragraph 32 which shows the antenna communications involving electromagnetic radiation further noting that changing an orientation of the antenna is known in the art to change a radiation pattern of the antenna). Palayur teaches the RF data indicating which of the plurality of user devices are within the radiation pattern of the antenna and which are outside of the radiation pattern (see paragraph 63 which shows the determining the location of a user device which implies determining whether the device is within or outside of the radiation pattern). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Palayur to the modified device of Lee and Filtsch in order to more efficiently make adjustments to WiFi devices to better ensure optimal signal strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee still teaches “receiving updated RF data from the plurality of user devices after the plurality of user devices have moved to different locations in an environment”. The above rejection has been more detailed to show how paragraph 40 of Lee shows a proximity sensor on the device to detect proximity of users external to the device where the proximity of an external device is dependent on the location of the device and any change in proximity implies updated data which includes the change in proximity. The cited passage reads on the limitation more so because there are no specifics in the claim regarding the type of data and the location. Finally, the concept of receiving new data from a device which has moved is well known in the art.
The above also applies to claims 8 and 14.
Regarding Claim 4, Palayur still teaches “wherein adjusting the position of the antenna moves the radiation pattern such that the radiation pattern covers more of the plurality of user devices”. Paragraphs 27 and 64 were cited in Palayur to more clearly show the teaching of the above limitation by showing the adjusting of the power and steer of the antennas in which a higher power implies a larger coverage of more devices. The concept of steering, calibrating, and adjusting the power of the AP antennas all implies the adjustment of the radiation pattern to cover more area and therefore, more devices.
Regarding Claim 15, Palayur still teaches a motor disposed in the Wi-Fi AP. Paragraphs 64 and 67 shows the steering and calibration of antennas in the AP and neither is possible without a motor to move the antennas. In addition, an AP with a motor to move antennas is very widely known in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights