DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 4/2/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are the base independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files the Remark: see page 8.
Applicant explains the claim construction based on the cited references (or citations from the references) that were mapped to the claim limitations under the Rejection. Such that, the claim requires determining an overall wireless link quality assessment based on the wireless link quality factors using a truth table. Applicant next explains the limitations can be understood through Applicant’s specification (e.g. [0043]). Applicant further explains that the overall wireless link quality assessment can provide a means to quantify the effectiveness of certain features. Applicant then argues Lu (e.g. [0061]-[0067]) only discloses a profile of WLAN using a formula with RSSI related parameters, hence Lu fails to teach the feature of using a truth table that can directly map discrete combinations of input values to discrete output values.
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully clarifies that Applicant’s claim interpretation is narrow, especially when the Applicant emphasizes that the claimed table has discrete combinations of input and output. Yet, Examiner disagrees. First, the claimed feature of using a truth table is for “determining an overall wireless link quality” and second, how to specifically use the table or patent eligible steps of using the table are not recited in the method claim 1. Third, the Under BRI, Examiner interprets that Lu’s formula and assessment mythology can read on the “truth table” because there are inputs (i.e. parameters) and outputs (i.e. GOOD, FAIR or POOR quality of the wireless link). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, Examiner clarifies that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see MPEP § 2145 VI) and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation is applied.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant files the Remark: see page 9, states Lu fails to disclose determining the profile of WLAN as being bad “when one of the wireless link quality factors is bad”, since Lu is using a formula while using the truth table comprises determining one of the wireless link quality factors.
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and clarifies that a wireless link quality factor is a broad term because there are many wireless link quality factors that can determine a bad quality of the wireless link. For example, a received signal strength indicator is one of the quality factors.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant files the Remark: see page 10, states that the claimed limitation comprises “uplink” wireless link quality factors and “uplink” wireless link quality assessment, thus Lu fails to teach the uplink feature.
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and clarifies that the claimed “uplink” quality feature is broad. Assuming arguendo uplink quality is an uplink quality of a channel between an access point and a WLAN client device, then Lu discloses the claimed quality factor because Lu’s system measures the quality of the wireless channel between WAP and each of the devices, the channel is an uplink and/or a downlink channel because the signal is measured in both directions between the WAP and the client device. One example is given in par [0065]-[0067], and it discloses a transmit Modulation_Rate_Score for device 160. Since it measures a signal being transmitted by the device, thus Lu reads on the uplink feature, and thus the determination of the quality implies an overall uplink wireless link quality assessment.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant files the Remark: see page 10, states that the claimed limitation comprises “downlink” wireless link quality factors and “downlink” wireless link quality assessment, thus Lu fails to teach the downlink feature.
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and clarifies that the claimed “downlink” quality feature is broad. Assuming arguendo downlink quality is a downlink quality of a channel between an access point and a WLAN client device, then Lu discloses the claimed quality factor because Lu’s system measures the quality of the wireless channel between WAP and each of the devices, the channel is an uplink and/or a downlink channel because the signal is measured in both directions between the WAP and the client device. One example is given in par [0065]-[0067], and it discloses a receive Modulation_Rate_Score for device 160. Since it measures a signal being received by the device, thus Lu reads on the downlink feature, and thus the determination of the quality implies an overall downlink wireless link quality assessment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lu et al (US 2020/0127745) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al (US 2020/0127745) in view of Ong et al (US 2024/0357424).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a method for assessing wireless link quality, the method comprising:
at a wireless device (fig. 1; e.g. WAP 120), monitoring at least one of (examining note: since the claim shows a limitation in an alternative form, the prior art may teach either or both limitations, and this notice applies to subsequent occurrences of claim limitations that are in the alternative form) user traffic (par 18, par 56; e.g. packets transmitted or received) and a wireless channel characteristic (par 17, par 45-52; e.g. parameters related to the wireless channel) to generate a plurality of wireless link quality factors (par 51; e.g. quality of the wireless connection), wherein each of the wireless link quality factors has a fixed number of possible outcomes (par 52; e.g. channel connection categories are designated as colors “Green,” “yellow,” and “Red”); and
at the wireless device, determining an overall wireless link quality assessment based on the wireless link quality factors using a truth table (par 53-72; e.g. a profile or score may be rated based on the thresholds: Profile>90: GOOD; 80<Profile<89: FAIR, and Profile<80: POOR).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses:
wherein a network management action is triggered based on the overall wireless link quality assessment (par 72; e.g. upon receiving a profile mapping to the "POOR" designation, action may be taken to improve network performance).
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses:
further comprising triggering a network management action based on the overall wireless link quality assessment (par 72; e.g. upon receiving a profile mapping to the "POOR" designation, action may be taken to improve network performance).
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses:
wherein the overall wireless link quality assessment is good, average, or bad (par 53-72; e.g. a profile or score may be rated based on the thresholds: Profile>90: GOOD; 80<Profile<89: FAIR, and Profile<80: POOR).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses:
wherein each of the wireless link quality factors is good, average, or bad (par 52; e.g. channel connection categories are designated as colors “Green,” “yellow,” and “Red”).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses:
wherein at the wireless device, determining the overall wireless link quality assessment based on the wireless link quality factors using the truth table comprises at the wireless device, determining the overall wireless link quality assessment as being good when each of the wireless link quality factors is good (par 61; e.g. based on the equation, the profile can be in “GOOD” status when the TX_Mod_Rate_score, Rx_Mod_Rate_Score and RSSI_Score are in “Green” status).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses:
wherein at the wireless device, determining the overall wireless link quality assessment based on the wireless link quality factors using the truth table comprises at the wireless device, determining the overall wireless link quality assessment as being bad when one of the wireless link quality factors is bad (par 61; e.g. based on the equation, the profile can be in “POOR” status when one of the TX_Mod_Rate_score, Rx_Mod_Rate_Score and RSSI_Score is in “Red” status).
Regarding claim 8, Lu further discloses:
wherein the wireless link quality factors comprise a transmit/receive (Tx/Rx) rate combination optimality factor (par 57-65, Tx_Mod_Rate_Score for transmit Mondulation_Rate_Score of Device 160 and Rx_Mod_Rate_Score for receive Mondulation_Rate_Score of Device 160), par 57; e.g. RSSI score).
The reference does not explicitly disclose a per packet downlink latency factor as one of the wireless link quality factors.
However, it is obvious in view of Ong, because Ong discloses:
In fig. 6, par 50, par 55-56; e.g. MAC layer information may reveal transmission/reception activities of actual packets, for example, how many packets have been transmitted, packet delivery latency, etc.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Ong with the electronic system of Lu. One is motivated as such to obtain accurate information on the impact of interference (Ong, par 56).
Regarding claim 9, Lu further discloses:
wherein at the wireless device, monitoring at least one of the user traffic and the wireless channel characteristic to generate the wireless link quality factors comprises determining the Tx/Rx rate combination optimality factor based on a rate optimality function (par 51-52; e.g. a modulation rate ratio may be computed to provide an indication of the quality of a wireless connection).
Regarding claim 10, Lu further discloses:
wherein at the wireless device, monitoring at least one of the user traffic and the wireless channel characteristic to generate the wireless link quality factors comprises:
generating a downlink rate optimality score based on a rate optimality function; or generating an uplink rate optimality score based on the rate optimality function (par 51; e.g. the modulation rate ratio may be determined by dividing a current modulation rate by a maximum modulation rate).
Regarding claim 11, Lu discloses:
wherein the wireless link quality factors comprise a plurality of uplink wireless link quality factors, and wherein the overall wireless link quality assessment comprises an overall uplink wireless link quality assessment (par 17; e.g. measurement of quality of the wireless channel between WAP 120 and each of the devices 160; the measurement of the power received may take the form of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), and measurement of the quality of the wireless channel may be based on the modulation coding index scheme (MCS) index negotiated between WAP 120 and each of the devices 160; thus the channel is uplink/downlink channel and the quality assessment implies to uplink/downlink).
Regarding claim 12, Lu discloses:
wherein the wireless link quality factors comprise a plurality of downlink wireless link quality factors, and wherein the overall wireless link quality assessment comprises an overall downlink wireless link quality assessment (par 17; e.g. measurement of quality of the wireless channel between WAP 120 and each of the devices 160; the measurement of the power received may take the form of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), and measurement of the quality of the wireless channel may be based on the modulation coding index scheme (MCS) index negotiated between WAP 120 and each of the devices 160; thus the channel is uplink/downlink channel and the quality assessment implies to uplink/downlink).
Regarding claim 13, Lu discloses:
wherein the wireless device comprises a wireless access point (AP) (par 27; e.g. profiler device 180 may reside in WAP 120 or a device 160 for collecting measurements).
Regarding claim 14, Lu discloses:
wherein the wireless device comprises a wireless station (STA) (par 27; e.g. profiler device 180 may reside in WAP 120 or a device 160 for collecting measurements).
Regarding claims 15-19, Lu discloses the subject matter similarly to the rejection mappings of claims 1-5 above.
Regarding claim 20, Lu discloses a method for assessing wireless link quality, the method comprising:
at a wireless device (fig. 1; e.g. WAP 120), monitoring at least one of (examining note: since the claim shows a limitation in an alternative form, the prior art may teach either or both limitations, and this notice applies to subsequent occurrences of claim limitations that are in the alternative form) user traffic (par 18, par 56; e.g. packets transmitted or received) and a wireless channel characteristic (par 17, par 45-52; e.g. parameters related to the wireless channel) to generate a plurality of wireless link quality factors (par 51; e.g. quality of the wireless connection), wherein each of the wireless link quality factors has a fixed number of possible outcomes (par 52; e.g. channel connection categories are designated as colors “Green,” “yellow,” and “Red”), and wherein the wireless link quality factors comprise a transmit/receive (Tx/Rx) rate combination optimality factor (par 57-65, Tx_Mod_Rate_Score for transmit Mondulation_Rate_Score of Device 160 and Rx_Mod_Rate_Score for receive Mondulation_Rate_Score of Device 160), par 57; e.g. RSSI score);
at the wireless device, determining an overall wireless link quality assessment based on the wireless link quality factors using a truth table (par 53-72; e.g. a profile or score may be rated based on the thresholds: Profile>90: GOOD; 80<Profile<89: FAIR, and Profile<80: POOR), wherein the overall wireless link quality assessment is good, average, or bad (par 53-72; e.g. a profile or score may be rated based on the thresholds: Profile>90: GOOD; 80<Profile<89: FAIR, and Profile<80: POOR); and
triggering a network management action based on the overall wireless link quality assessment (par 72; e.g. upon receiving a profile mapping to the "POOR" designation, action may be taken to improve network performance).
The reference does not explicitly disclose a per packet downlink latency factor as one of the wireless link quality factors.
However, it is obvious in view of Ong, because Ong discloses:
In fig. 6, par 50, par 55-56; e.g. MAC layer information may reveal transmission/reception activities of actual packets, for example, how many packets have been transmitted, packet delivery latency, etc.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Ong with the electronic system of Lu. One is motivated as such to obtain accurate information on the impact of interference (Ong, par 56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Claus et al (US 2016/0173805, see abstract).
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights