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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “likelihood” in the phrase “increase a likelihood of regaining connectivity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear whether the claims are directed to a 1% increase in likelihood of reconnection or 100% increase in likelihood of reconnection, and the two interpretations are functionally unique. Claims 2-20 recite and/or inherit at least the same deficiency, and are rejected for at least the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 20 recite the limitation "another device" in the first limitation, then subsequently refers to “the other device.” Examiner is interpreting “the other device” as referring to “another device” but the claims to not explicitly teach that these are the same device when considered under BRI. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 recite “the other device” and inherit the same lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a first device” and “a second device” in the first limitation, then subsequent refers to “the device” and “the other device.” Examiner is interpreting “the device” as referring to the first device and “the other device” as referring to the second device, but this is not supported by the claim language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-19 refer to “the device” and “the other device” and should likewise be amended to recite “the first device” and “the second device” respectively in order to establish proper antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5, for example, recites a limitation that is functionally identical to the parent claim, namely using configuration data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pan (US 2023/0129846 A1).
Pan teaches configuring a connection between two devices, detecting a disconnection event, and using received configuration information to attempt to regain connection. See Pan Fig. 3 recreated below for an exemplary embodiment.
PNG
media_image1.png
808
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Pan teaches the below limitation(s):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, using network radio data from a network radio for a device that was connected to another device using the network radio, that the device is disconnected from the other device (Pan Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected; [0137] first wireless access device may detect a connection status to obtain the information of disconnection between the first wireless access device and the second wireless access device);
in response to determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio, determining configuration data i) for the device ii) that indicates changes to data on the device to cause the device to increase a likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio ([0139] after disconnection, first wireless device may use the stored configuration information 1 to establish (or re-establish) the connection to the second wireless access device); and
using the configuration data to cause the device to change the data on the device to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio comprises receiving, from the device and by one or more computers, a message that indicates that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected); and
using the configuration data comprises sending, to the device, the configuration data to cause the device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1, which examiner is interpreting as "increasing the likelihood" of regaining a connection).
Regarding Claim 5, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
using, by the device, the configuration data to cause the device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
comprising determining a likely cause of the device losing connectivity to the other device using the network radio, wherein determining the configuration data uses data for the likely cause of the device losing connectivity to the other device using the network radio (Pan [0075] a connection may be disconnected because configuration information in the MPP and the MP 1 is inconsistent).
Regarding Claim 7, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
comprising maintaining, for the device, firmware data that indicates one or more operations for the device to perform to increase a likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device, wherein determining the configuration data uses the firmware data (Pan [0264] foregoing embodiments may be implemented by using firmware; Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected; [0137] first wireless access device may detect a connection status to obtain the information of disconnection between the first wireless access device and the second wireless access device).
Regarding Claim 8, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
after using the configuration data to cause the device to change the data on the device, determining a connection status between the device and the other device (Pan Fig 3 block 308 notify server of information that the connection is established by using the configuration information 1); and
performing one or more additional operations using the connection status between the device and the other device (Fig 3 blocks 309 and 310 first wireless device receives configuration information 3 and establishes a new connection with second first device using configuration information 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
sending, to an additional device, the configuration data that caused the device to change the data to cause the additional device to perform an operation using the configuration data (Pan Fig 3 first wireless access device notifies server (i.e. additional device) that connection is established using configuration information 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein determining that the device is disconnected from the other device comprises determining that the device is unable to send signals to or receive signals from the other device over the network radio (Pan [0005] disconnect is detected and cloud management platform cannot deliver configuration information (i.e. unable to send/receive signals); [0012] first wireless access device and the second wireless access device is disconnected if the first wireless access device does not receive the second configuration information).
Regarding Claim 14, Pan teaches the below limitation(s):
A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers (Pan [0055] teaches a device comprising a computer storage medium that is non-volatile and stores computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions may be executed by a processor; see also [0051]-[0054]), to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining, using network radio data from a network radio for a first device that was connected to a second device using the network radio, that the first device is disconnected from the second device (Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected; [0137] first wireless access device may detect a connection status to obtain the information of disconnection between the first wireless access device and the second wireless access device);
in response to determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio, determining configuration data i) for the device ii) that indicates changes to data on the device to cause the device to increase a likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio ([0139] after disconnection, first wireless device may use the stored configuration information 1 to establish (or re-establish) the connection to the second wireless access device); and
using the configuration data to cause the device to change the data on the device to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein determining that the first device is disconnected from the second device using the network radio comprises receiving, from the device and by the one or more computers, a message that indicates that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected); and
using the configuration data comprises sending, to the first device, the configuration data to cause the first device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the second device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1, which examiner is interpreting as "increasing the likelihood" of regaining a connection).
Regarding Claim 18, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein using the configuration data comprises using, by the first device, the configuration data to cause the first device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the second device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Pan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Pan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the operations further comprise determining a likely cause of the first device losing connectivity to the second device using the network radio, wherein determining the configuration data uses data for the likely cause of the first device losing connectivity to the second device using the network radio (Pan [0075] a connection may be disconnected because configuration information in the MPP and the MP 1 is inconsistent).
Regarding Claim 20, Pan teaches the below limitation(s):
One or more computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers (Pan [0055] teaches a device comprising a computer storage medium that is non-volatile and stores computer-readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions may be executed by a processor; see also [0051]-[0054]), cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining, using network radio data for a device that a) has a network radio and b) was connected to another device using the network radio, that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 306 first wireless access device obtains information that the connection to second wireless access device is disconnected; [0137] first wireless access device may detect a connection status to obtain the information of disconnection between the first wireless access device and the second wireless access device);
in response to determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio, determining configuration data i) for the device ii) that indicates changes to data on the device to cause the device to increase a likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio ([0139] after disconnection, first wireless device may use the stored configuration information 1 to establish (or re-establish) the connection to the second wireless access device); and
using the configuration data to cause the device to change the data on the device to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2023/0129846 A1) in view of Ooba (US 2009/0196187 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Pan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan further discloses the below limitation(s): using the configuration data comprises sending, to the device, the configuration data to cause the device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the other device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Pan does not disclose the below limitation(s): sending, to the device and using a communication protocol for which the network radio is configured, a ping, wherein:
determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio comprises determining that the device has not responded to the ping within a threshold time period; and
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Ooba does disclose the below limitation(s): sending, to the device and using a communication protocol for which the network radio is configured, a ping (Ooba [0127] teaches sending a PING command to the next terminal), wherein:
determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio comprises determining that the device has not responded to the ping within a threshold time period ([0127] if no response comes within a preset time (e.g. sum of a normal communication time defined by a PING command and a specific tolerance time), the next local terminal is considered disconnected); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include sending a ping to determine whether a device is connected as taught by Ooba. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a ping to determine a connection status without requiring additional information to be sent that would be lost in the event of a disconnection event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan and Ooba to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Pan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Pan further discloses the below limitation(s): sending, to the first device, the configuration data to cause the first device to change the data to increase the likelihood of regaining connectivity with the second device using the network radio (Pan Fig 3 block 307 first wireless access device establishes a connection by using the configuration information 1).
Pan does not disclose the below limitation(s): sending, to the device and using a communication protocol for which the network radio is configured, a ping, wherein:
determining that the device is disconnected from the other device using the network radio comprises determining that the device has not responded to the ping within a threshold time period; and
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Ooba does disclose the below limitation(s): sending, to the first device and using a communication protocol for which the network radio is configured, a ping (Ooba [0127] teaches sending a PING command to the next terminal), wherein:
determining that the first device is disconnected from the second device using the network radio comprises determining that the first device has not responded to the ping within a threshold time period ([0127] if no response comes within a preset time (e.g. sum of a normal communication time defined by a PING command and a specific tolerance time), the next local terminal is considered disconnected); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include sending a ping to determine whether a device is connected as taught by Ooba. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a ping to determine a connection status without requiring additional information to be sent that would be lost in the event of a disconnection event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan and Ooba to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Ooba and further in view of Largman (US 2019/0334983 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Pan and Ooba disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 3.
Ooba further discloses the below limitation(s): determining that the device is disconnected comprises determining that the device has not responded according to the predetermined schedule (Ooba [0127] if no response comes within a preset time (e.g. sum of a normal communication time defined by a PING command and a specific tolerance time), the next local terminal is considered disconnected).
Pan and Ooba do not disclose the below limitation(s): sending the ping comprises sending the ping according to a predetermined schedule; and
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Largman does disclose the below limitation(s): sending the ping comprises sending the ping according to a predetermined schedule (Largman [0049] teaches transmitting health status data (e.g. pings) to the status checker according to a defined schedule (e.g. every 20 seconds)); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include the ping connection status check of Ooba with a regularly schedule ping transmission as taught by Largman. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to regularly check connection status on a schedule so that a disconnection can be detected and responded to dynamically. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan, Ooba and Largman to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Pan and Ooba disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 16.
Pan and Ooba do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein sending the ping comprises sending the ping according to a predetermined schedule; and
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Largman does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein sending the ping comprises sending the ping according to a predetermined schedule (Largman [0049] teaches transmitting health status data (e.g. pings) to the status checker according to a defined schedule (e.g. every 20 seconds)); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include the ping connection status check of Ooba with a regularly schedule ping transmission as taught by Largman. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to regularly check connection status on a schedule so that a disconnection can be detected and responded to dynamically. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan, Ooba and Largman to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Largman.
Regarding Claim 9, Pan and Largman disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Pan further discloses the below limitation(s): further comprising sending further configuration data (Pan Fig 3 blocks 309 and 310 first wireless device receives configuration information 3 and establishes a new connection with second first device using configuration information 3) …,
wherein the connection status indicates that the device and the other devices are still disconnected ([0137] first wireless access device may detect a connection status to obtain the information of disconnection between the first wireless access device and the second wireless access device).
Pan does not disclose the below limitation(s): further comprising sending further configuration data with instructions for generating a message for display in a user interface on the device,
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Largman does disclose the below limitation(s): further comprising sending further configuration data with instructions for generating a message for display in a user interface on the device (Largman [0097] apparatus may comprise input/output circuitry which may further comprise a user interface and may include a display),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include a user interface for communicating, for example, connection status as taught by Largman. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to communicate to a user that corrective action is being taken in order to improve user satisfaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan and Largman to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Pan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Pan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein determining that the device is disconnected from the other device uses a cross protocol communication mode with the network radio.
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Largman does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein determining that the device is disconnected from the other device uses a cross protocol communication mode with the network radio (Largman [0053] communication network may utilize a variety of networking protocols, and the networking protocol may be customized to suit the needs of the group-based communication system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include using a cross protocol communication mode as taught by Largman. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use a cross protocol mode because modern networks typically have multiple different protocols being used that could interfere with correcting a disconnection event if the wrong protocol is used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan and Largman to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Largman and further in view of Lamba (US 2012/0215880 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Pan and Largman disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 9.
Pan further discloses the below limitation(s): sending, to one or more additional devices that connect with the other device using the corresponding network communication protocol and using data from the database, a network connectivity message.
Pan and Largman do not disclose the below limitation(s): storing, in a database that tracks connection status for various network communication protocols and devices, the connection status that indicates a corresponding network communication protocol for the connection between the device and the other device; and
In the same field of endeavor of responding to a disconnection event in a wireless network, Lamba does disclose the below limitation(s): storing, in a database that tracks connection status for various network communication protocols and devices, the connection status that indicates a corresponding network communication protocol for the connection between the device and the other device (Lamba Fig 1 database 160 comprising stack 155; Fig 3 wherein an entry in the stack comprises a device ID and a connection status for each protocol connection of the associated device); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned computer method/system to include storing connection information and protocol information corresponding to the connection in a table as taught by Lamba. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to store connection information in a table so that it can be retrieved during corrective action caused by a disconnection event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pan, Largman and Lamba to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412