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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrod (US Pub. 2018/0027435).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Harrod teaches a device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to: obtain instructions that cause the device to operate as a synthetic client device and to simulate a roaming instance (“The DUT 2 is also set up to be able to communicate wirelessly via the 802.11 compliant wireless protocol or other communication protocol whose roam characteristics are to be tested” in [0023]); and send data associated with the roaming instance to a network management system, wherein the data is indicative of a performance of the roaming instance (see “roaming performance” in [0016], “The DUT log records” in [0025] and “the WPA_CLI event log (or other DUT wireless communication log) is read (operation 40)” in [0027]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Harrod teaches the device comprises one of a network access server (NAS) device or a client device (“wireless medical device under test (DUT)” in [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Harrod teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: determine the performance of the roaming instance (“transmit power, communication frequency, or other settings of the wireless communication interface of the DUT 2, strength of the AP signal at the DUT 2, data rate for test data communication” in [0023]), wherein sending data associated with the roaming instance to the network management system comprises sending data indicative of the performance of the roaming instance (see “roaming performance” in [0016], “The DUT log records” in [0025] and “the WPA_CLI event log (or other DUT wireless communication log) is read (operation 40)” in [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Harrod teaches a network management system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to: send instructions that cause a device of a site to operate as a synthetic client device and to simulate a roaming instance (“The DUT 2 is also set up to be able to communicate wirelessly via the 802.11 compliant wireless protocol or other communication protocol whose roam characteristics are to be tested” in [0023]); obtain data associated with the roaming instance (see “The DUT log records” in [0025] and “the WPA_CLI event log (or other DUT wireless communication log) is read (operation 40)” in [0027]); and determine, based on the data associated with the roaming instance, a performance of the roaming instance (“roaming performance” in [0016]).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrod in view of Jain et al. (US Pub. 2016/0373944).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Harrod teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 10 as shown above. Harrod, however, does not teach the instructions comprise an identifier of the synthetic client device and a schedule to implement the roaming instance. Jain teaches the instructions comprise an identifier of the synthetic client device (“AP ID” and “unit ID” in [0103]) and a schedule to implement the roaming instance (see “schedule test” in [0106] and “testing may include roaming tests” in [0208]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrod to have the instructions comprise an identifier of the synthetic client device and a schedule to implement the roaming instance as taught by Jain in order to perform scheduled tests [0209].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Jain teaches the instructions further comprise cryptographic information for the roaming instance (“authentication and security testing” in [0208]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrod in view of Ketonen et al. (US Pub. 2018/0338278).
Regarding claim 14, Harrod teaches the limitations in claim 10 as shown above. Harrod, however, does not teach the one or more processors are further configured to: perform an action based on identifying an issue with the roaming instance. Ketonen teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: perform an action based on identifying an issue with the roaming instance (“reports an error is the roaming testing device connects to an unauthorized wireless access point outside of the region” in [0009]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harrod to have the one or more processors are further configured to: perform an action based on identifying an issue with the roaming instance as taught by Ketonen in order to ensure that the roaming testing device uses wireless access points within a specific region [0009].
Regarding claim 15, Ketonen teaches to perform the action, the one or more processors are configured to perform one of: generate a notification indicating the issue with the roaming instance; or configure the device of the site to remedy the issue with the roaming instance (see “reports an error is the roaming testing device connects to an unauthorized wireless access point outside of the region” in [0009] and “trigger notification” in step 305 in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Ketonen teaches to determine the performance of the roaming instance, the one or more processors are configured to one or more of: determine whether there is an issue in obtaining cryptographic information for the roaming instance; determine whether there is an issue in sharing cryptographic information for the roaming instance; determine whether there is an issue with configuration of one or more devices associated with the roaming instance; determine whether there is an issue with network connectivity of the roaming instance (“reports an error is the roaming testing device connects to an unauthorized wireless access point outside of the region” in [0009]); or determine whether there is an issue in communicating network traffic in response to performing the roaming instance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 17-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights