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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/17/2026, the title objection and the claims objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, (page 5), that KAUSHIK does not disclose calculating an overall QoE value based on each of the received QoE values.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. KAUSHIK teaches calculating an overall QoE value based on each of the received QoE values ([0032-0034], calculating an overall QoE value (i.e. new current QoE station index) based on each of the received QoE values (i.e. initial QoE station index)).
It is disclosed in paragraphs [0032-0034] in KAUSHIK as follows:
[0032] A listing of QoE values is maintained by the system and may be stored in the access point in some embodiments. The current QoE station index is initially given a default value, for example ‘100’. An administrator may assign the initial QoE value accordingly, in other instances. In some embodiments, all stations have the same initial QoE value assigned. In other embodiments, some stations may have different initial QoE values from each other. Stations with different initial QoE values may be advantageous in design in order to bias preference for certain access points. The listing of QoE values is maintained in a table format, an example of which can be seen in FIG. 6. The table of FIG. 6 illustrates an updated listing of the Quality of Experience (QoE) values for each station connected to an access point, according to one embodiment. For example, station 2 (MAC 00:00:00:00:00:02) still maintains an initial QoE value of 100, while station 3 (MAC 00:00:00:00:00:03) and station 1 (MAC 00:00:00:00:00:01) have adjusted QoE values of 91 and 96 respectively.
[0033] The access point further functions to determine if available bandwidth for the applications is below a threshold for station QoE application minimum bandwidth. If it is found to be below the threshold, the current QoE station index must be updated. This is accomplished by subtracting the difference between current QoE station index and the corresponding QoE penalty weightage of the applications which are below the threshold for station QoE application minimum bandwidth. For example looking at FIG. 4, station 2 has traffic data flow of Lync Video Call, Netflix, and Gmail. For this example, station 2 has an initial QoE station index of 100. Looking at FIG. 5, there is a stated minimum bandwidth QoE for each QoE application listing. It can be seen that both Lync Video Call and Netflix are functioning properly as the data rate in FIG. 4 matches the minimum QoE value shown in FIG. 5. However, Outlook has a minimum bandwidth of satisfactory QoE of 2 Mbps as stated in FIG. 5, however, looking at FIG. 4, the Outlook data rate is 512 Kbps. This suggests the bandwidth is insufficient for the requisite QoE. Therefore, the initial QoE station index of 100 requires adjustment by subtracting the pre-determined weighting value from the initial QoE station index of 100. The new current QoE station index would be 100−5=95 (as 5 is the pre-determined weighting value for Outlook).
Therefore, KAUSHIK teaches calculating an overall QoE value based on each of the received QoE values.
Applicant argues, (page 5), that “Further, even if a terminal with degraded QoE were detected in KAUSHIK, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such detection does not serve as a criterion for determining whether to permit connection of a non-connected terminal. As presented above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of KAUSHIK with those of Prakash. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not proper.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the teachings of Prakash, permitting connection between the wireless LAN access point and the wireless terminal in a non-connected state in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state with the wireless LAN access point to the wireless LAN access point, into the teachings of KAUSHIK, in order for setting up a connection in a communication system (Prakash, [0002]). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper.
Applicant argues, (page 6), that “it is unreasonable to conclude that combining the teachings of Jung with those of KAUSHIK and Prakash would have been obvious, and thus a lack of non-obviousness of the inventive features recited in claim 2 is therefore not proper.”
In response to applicant's argument that “it is unreasonable to conclude that combining the teachings of Jung with those of KAUSHIK and Prakash would have been obvious, and thus a lack of non-obviousness of the inventive features recited in claim 2 is therefore not proper”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAUSHIK et al. (Pub. No.: US 20180288635 A1), hereinafter KAUSHIK, in view of Prakash et al. (Pub. No.: US 20060133409 A1), hereinafter Prakash.
With respect to claim 1, KAUSHIK teaches A wireless terminal connection control method for a wireless LAN access point (fig. 1, [0023], access point) and a plurality of wireless terminals (fig. 1, [0023], stations 110) having wireless interfaces of both a wireless LAN (fig. 1, [0023], Wi-Fi connection) and a public mobile communication network (fig. 1, [0023], network 199), the method comprising:
receiving a quality of experience (QoE) value indicating communication quality of the wireless LAN felt by a user from each of the wireless terminals connected to the wireless LAN access point ([0031- 0032], receiving QoE value indicating communication quality (i.e. station 2 still maintains an initial QoE value of 100, while station 3 and station 1 have adjusted QoE values of 91 and 96 respectively) of the wireless LAN felt by a user from each of the wireless terminals connected to the wireless LAN access point (i.e. The table of FIG. 6 illustrates an updated listing of the Quality of Experience (QoE) values for each station connected to an access point));
calculating an overall QoE value based on each of the received QoE values ([0032-0034], calculating an overall QoE value (i.e. new current QoE station index) based on each of the received QoE values (i.e. initial QoE station index); [0033], the initial QoE station index of 100 requires adjustment by subtracting the pre-determined weighting value from the initial QoE station index of 100. The new current QoE station index would be 100−5=95)); and
in a case where the overall QoE value is equal to or greater than a threshold value ([0032-0033], where the overall QoE value is equal to a threshold value (i.e. station 2 still maintains an initial QoE value of 100, which is equal to a threshold value)).
KAUSHIK does not explicitly teach permitting connection between the wireless LAN access point and the wireless terminal in a non-connected state in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state with the wireless LAN access point to the wireless LAN access point.
However, Prakash teaches permitting connection between the wireless LAN access point and the wireless terminal in a non-connected state in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state with the wireless LAN access point to the wireless LAN access point ([0070-0071], the user terminal is not connected to the access point, the user terminal sends a Connection Request message to the access point. If the Connection Response message indicates that the session for the user terminal is found, as determined in block 614, then the user terminal communicates with the target access point using the complete protocol stack (block 616)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash, permitting connection between the wireless LAN access point and the wireless terminal in a non-connected state in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state with the wireless LAN access point to the wireless LAN access point, into the teachings of KAUSHIK, in order for setting up a connection in a communication system (Prakash, [0002]).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of KAUSHIK and Prakash teaches the method of claim 1. KAUSHIK teaches in a case where the overall QoE value is equal to or greater than the threshold value ([0032-0033], where the overall QoE value is equal to a threshold value (i.e. station 2 still maintains an initial QoE value of 100, which is equal to a threshold value)), and in a connected state with the public mobile communication network ([0038], traffic data flow from the stations through the network 199).
Although KAUSHIK teaches the public mobile communication network as set forth above. KAUSHIK does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless terminal in the non-connected state is in a non-connected state with a wireless LAN access point, and the permitting connection comprises permitting switching of the connection destination of the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point.
However, Prakash teaches wherein the wireless terminal in the non-connected state is in a non-connected state with a wireless LAN access point ([0070-0071], the user terminal is not connected to the access point,), and the permitting connection comprises permitting switching of the connection destination of the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point ([0070-0071], the user terminal is not connected to the access point, the user terminal sends a Connection Request message to the access point. If the Connection Response message indicates that the session for the user terminal is found, as determined in block 614, then the user terminal communicates with the target access point using the complete protocol stack (block 616))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash, wherein the wireless terminal in the non-connected state is in a non-connected state with a wireless LAN access point, and the permitting connection comprises permitting switching of the connection destination of the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point in a case where there is a connection request from the wireless terminal in the non-connected state to the wireless LAN access point, into the teachings of KAUSHIK, in order for setting up a connection in a communication system (Prakash, [0002]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAUSHIK, in view of Prakash, and further in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No.: US 20170353914 A1), hereinafter Jung.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of KAUSHIK and Prakash teaches the method of claim 1. KAUSHIK teaches the overall QoE value ([0032-0034]), and each received QoE value ([0031- 0032]).
The combination of KAUSHIK and Prakash does not explicitly teach an exponential moving average. However, Jung teaches an exponential moving average ([0122], each path is updated through an exponential moving average).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Prakash, an exponential moving average, into the teachings of KAUSHIK and Prakash, in order to enable users to obtain a higher quality of experience, and improve the communication performance by reducing a load inside the network (Jung, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7193. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
/KIET TANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights