DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 12/22/2023, wherein:
Claim 1-12 are pending.
Claim 1-12 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1-2, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amini et al. (US 20170135145 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amini discloses a method, implemented in a local communication network comprising a home gateway and at least one first wireless coverage extension device, for managing the installation of an additional wireless coverage extension device, said home gateway and said at least one first wireless coverage extension device forming access points to said local network, said method being implemented by a mobile terminal capable of moving around within said local communication network (¶0060 and ¶0064 disclose mobile device 103a running application for installing main mesh point and additional mesh point as shown in Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 7A-7C), and comprising:
determining an indication of position of said mobile terminal with respect to said access points to said local network, it being possible for said indication of position to assume a value chosen from a group of values comprising an indication of position that is too far away, an indication of position that is too near, and an indication of position that is optimal (Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 7A-7C, Fig. 8D, ¶0064, and ¶0071 disclose determining indication of position of mobile terminal with respect to access point with value chosen from close/far/optimal)
rendering a suitable position for installing said additional wireless coverage extension device, said suitable position corresponding to a current position of said mobile terminal in response to at least one of said indications of position assuming an indication of position value that is optimal and none of said indications of position assuming an indication of position value that is too near (Fig. 7C and ¶0071 disclose rendering suitable position for plugin the mesh point based on the determined position).
Regarding claim 2, Amini discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, as long as said suitable installation position has not been rendered, the method implements a rendering of said indications of position assuming an indication of position value that is too far away and/or an indication of position value that is too near (Fig. 7A, Fig. 7D, and ¶0071 disclose providing feedback indicating position that is too far or too close for mesh point installation).
Regarding claim 9, Amini discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method also comprises rendering a number of first wireless coverage extension devices through which a radio signal exchanged between said additional wireless coverage extension device and said home gateway would pass, if said additional wireless coverage extension device were installed at said current position of said mobile terminal (Fig. 7C and ¶0071 disclose rendering suitable position for plugin the mesh point – i.e. rendering a first wireless coverage extension through which a radio signal exchanged between said additional wireless coverage extension device and said home gateway would pass).
Regarding claim 11, the scope and content of the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code instructions stored thereon for implementing a method for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the scope and content of the claim recites a device for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 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.
Claim 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (US 20170135145 A1) in view of Vardarajan et al. (US 20170181006 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Amini discloses the method according to claim 1, however, silent on further details of claim 3.
Vardarajan discloses wherein said determination of an indication of position of said mobile terminal with respect to one of said access points comprises at least one measurement of an instantaneous level of radio signal exchanged between said mobile terminal and said access point (Fig. 6 and ¶0072 disclose instantaneous level of signal corresponding to distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Amini to incorporate (additional detail from secondary) from Vardarajan because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize signal strength and distance information for determining optimal location for network extension.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Amini and Vardarajan discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein a change in said indication of position value occurs when said radio signal level measured crosses a defined radio signal level threshold (Vardarajan - Fig. 7E, ¶0025-0026, and ¶0080 – “The signal strength received at wireless range extender 712 from wireless access point 708 may be identified as above a suitable low-threshold value (e.g., greater than 25%) and below a high-threshold value (e.g., less than 75%) and so it may be determined by the wireless range extender 712 that the placement is optimal. Again, wireless range extender may generate a notification of the optimal placement, such as a notification included on a web page generated by wireless range extender 712 and/or displayed directly by wireless range extender 712, such as using one or more lights or audible signals”). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Amini and Vardarajan discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein said indication of position changes from an indication of position value that is optimal to an indication of position value that is too far away, respectively too near, when said measured radio signal level falls below a low threshold of an optimal radio signal level, respectively rises above a high threshold of an optimal radio signal level, and wherein said indication of position changes from an indication of position value that is too far away, respectively too near, to an indication of position value that is optimal when said measured radio signal level rises above a threshold of a radio signal level that is too weak, respectively falls below a threshold of a radio signal level that is too strong, and wherein said low threshold of an optimal radio signal level is lower than said threshold of a radio signal level that is too weak and said high threshold of an optimal radio signal level is higher than said threshold of a radio signal level that is too strong (Vardarajan - Fig. 7E, ¶0025-0026, ¶0080 – “The signal strength received at wireless range extender 712 from wireless access point 708 may be identified as above a suitable low-threshold value (e.g., greater than 25%) and below a high-threshold value (e.g., less than 75%) and so it may be determined by the wireless range extender 712 that the placement is optimal. Again, wireless range extender may generate a notification of the optimal placement, such as a notification included on a web page generated by wireless range extender 712 and/or displayed directly by wireless range extender 712, such as using one or more lights or audible signals”). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (US 20170135145 A1) in view of Vardarajan et al. (US 20170181006 A1) and Sung et al. (US 20150268326 A1)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Amini and Vardarajan discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein said mobile terminal communicates with said access points using a Wi-Fi wireless communication technology (Amini – 0006 and 0042-0043 disclose access point and client device communicating using WLAN), however, silent on further details about said measurement of an instantaneous level of radio signal comprises a measurement, by said access point, of the received signal strength indication of a Wi-Fi signal transmitted by said mobile terminal.
Sung discloses said measurement of an instantaneous level of radio signal comprises a measurement, by said access point, of the received signal strength indication of a Wi-Fi signal transmitted by said mobile terminal (Fig. 1 and ¶0026 – “an access point (AP) type, wirelessly receiving the positional identification information of the user terminal 300, measuring an angle of arrival of the signal using an uplink signal, and measuring a distance using a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) so as to estimate a position, wherein the uplink is a communication link used to transmit the signal from the user terminal 300 to the uplink access point 400”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Amini and Vardarajan to incorporate uplink signal measurement for locating device from Sung because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to employ alternative technique for determining location of client device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amini et al. (US 20170135145 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20150055566 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Amini discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method also comprises rendering a message recommending connecting said additional wireless coverage extension device to said local communication network (Fig. 7C and ¶0071 disclose rendering suitable position for plugin the mesh point). However, the reference is silent on details about extension to local communication network using a wired communication technology.
Lin discloses extension to local communication network using a wired communication technology (¶0006 – “WiFi extenders typically are similar to wireless access devices, but do not include an integral router connected to the external network. Instead, WiFi extenders typically rely on wired or wireless connections to the WiFi router to connect to the external network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Amini to incorporate wired connection between WLAN node from Lin because doing so would be “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize wired connection to increase reliability of the connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 8 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643