Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Amendment to application 18/613,527 filed on 6/1/26.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the reasons below.
4. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues, “Applicant submits that the rejection in the Office Action relies on Clancy for a 6 GHz Wi- Fi/AFC operability system, but acknowledges that Clancy does not specifically disclose "determining, based on the information within the account, a physical address for the location." Office Action, § 103 Rejection 6. To fill that gap, the rejection turns to Smith's disclosure that customer locations for offer targeting "may be determined from their account details (e.g. home address)." Smith 84. Such combination is improper because Smith is non-analogous art and therefore cannot be used to supply the missing account-based physical-address limitation.
Under MPEP § 2141.01(a), prior art must be analogous, either because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention or because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the inventor. Smith satisfies neither prong. Applicant's disclosure is directed to Wi- Fi network management and AFC-based geolocation of AP devices, including extracting a home address for an AP based on a CSP contract, mapping that address to a geolocation, validating that geolocation, storing the validated AP geolocation information in accordance with the CSP contract/account, and configuring AP radio operation based on that validated geolocation. See Specification 46-47, 50-52, 77-78. Smith, by contrast, states that it "relates to a system and method for selecting offers and in particular for selecting and providing offers relevant to particular customers," and frames the problem as targeting offers to avoid lost revenue and "offer fatigue." Smith 1, 3-4. Smith's "account details (e.g. home address)" are customer attributes used to determine offer relevance and proximity to merchants, not information in a CSP deployment or Wi-Fi network account used to geolocate and configure an AP for AFC compliance. Smith 84.
Nor is Smith reasonably pertinent to Applications subject matter. The claimed subject matter uses account information associated with the Wi-Fi network to determine a physical service address, analyze that address to determine an AP geolocation, and then facilitate network activity based on AP configuration corresponding to that geolocation. Claims 1,
A person addressing that AFC/geolocated-AP configuration problem would not reasonably look to Smith's merchant-offer selection system, where location is used to decide which financial or merchant offers should be sent to customers. Smith 84. The Office Action provides no finding establishing that Smith is in the same field or reasonably pertinent to Applicant's AFC geolocation problem, and the stated rationale-that the combination would "obtain the address or the location of the service accurately and easily"-is only a conclusory result of the proposed combination, not the articulated, evidence-supported reason required under MPEP § 2143 and KSR.
Without Smith, Clancy does not cure the deficiency. Clancy's cited disclosure uses a user interface that prompts for a location input where a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device will be used, and a default location may be based on a QR code, GPS, previously stored location parameters, or other stored information. Clancy 63. Clancy then sends location parameters associated with the UI location input to an AFC system. Clancy 66. That is materially different from the claimed loop of accessing an account associated with the Wi-Fi network, determining a physical address based on information within that account, analyzing the physical address to determine the AP geolocation, and configuring AP-based network activity according to that determined geolocation. Clancy's user-entered or default UI location input is not a CSP-account-derived physical service address, and Smith's non-analogous offer-targeting account data cannot properly be imported to supply that missing claim feature.”
5. Applicants’ are reminded that according to MPEP 2141.01 (a), a reference may be relied on as a basis for rejection of an applicants’ invention if it is “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned.” A reasonably pertinent reference is further described as one which “even though it maybe in a different field of endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Smith is, therefore, a reasonably pertinent reference, because it teaches “ Customer locations may be determined from their account details (e.g. home address), transaction data (i.e. where they shop), or physical or instantaneous distance or position (e.g. determined from a GPS signal on their smartphone 250, and/or determined using a Bluetooth enabled location system, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and/or determined using a Wi-Fi access point location and/or determined using a near field communications (NFC) system, when operating the mobile application 260), which is a function especially pertinent to the invention at hand. So, the rejection is still maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7 – 12, 16 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. (US 2024/0196384, Clancy hereafter) in further view of Smith et al. (EP 2784738, Smith hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Clancy teaches A method comprising:
identifying a set of devices associated with a WiFi network at a location, the set of devices comprising an access point (AP) device (access point 2 and extender access point 3 of Fig. 2; operate in wi-fi band; paragraph 29, 31);
accessing an account associated with the WiFi network, the account comprising information related to capabilities (operability indicator) for the AP device to facilitate the WiFi network at the location (for example, any one or more client devices 4 connected directly and/or indirectly to the access point device 2. In one or more embodiments, a user can utilize a resource (such as any of an application, a link, a hyperlink, an application programming interface (API), a website (or uniform resource locator), a network resource 6, or any combination thereof) to provide an operability indicator as to whether a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device (such as the access point device 2, the extender access point device 3, or both) is permitted or allowed to operate at one or more 6 GHz frequency channels of a 6 GHz frequency band and/or operate at a transmit power that exceeds a certain transmit power, for example, above a low power, within one or more 6 GHz frequency channels of a 6 GHz frequency band for a location, such as a premises, paragraph 31);
determining, based on the analysis (Please refer to Fig. 4 A-D), a geolocation of the AP device (it determines the geolocation; In one or more embodiments, the location input 418 can be automatically filled with a default location. A default location can be based on any of information received from a scan of a QR code 440, a geolocation service (such as GPS), one or more location parameters previously stored in a memory, any other default or previously stored information, or any combination thereof. For example, “Default Address 1” can be automatically filled with a default location, paragraph 63); and
facilitating network activity via the AP device for connected devices within the set of devices based on a configuration of the AP device corresponding to the determined geolocation of the AP device (For example, selection of the command button 430 can alter an indication of the operability indicator 420 as to operability at a location. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate a visual indicator that the 6 GHz Wi-Fi device is operable (such as permitted or allowed to operate and/or permitted or allowed to operate above a low power) at the location indicated by the location input 418. As an example, selection of a command button 430 can initiate a request from the network device 300 to a network resource 6, such as an AFC system, paragraph 66).
Even though Clancy teaches and/or discloses having a default address which can be obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to obtain from the information within the account; it is not specifically disclosed.
Smith teaches determining, based on the information within the account, a physical address for the location; analyzing the physical address (Customer locations may be determined from their account details (e.g. home address), transaction data (i.e. where they shop), or physical or instantaneous distance or position (e.g. determined from a GPS signal on their smartphone 250, and/or determined using a Bluetooth enabled location system, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and/or determined using a Wi-Fi access point location and/or determined using a near field communications (NFC) system, when operating the mobile application 260), Fig. 11; paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Smith’s accessing address via customer database of the Wi-fi services of the ISP with the system of Clancy. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can obtain the address or the location of the service accurately and easily.
Regarding claim 2, Clancy with Smith teaches The method of claim 1, Clancy further comprising: performing a validation operation of the determined geolocation of the AP device, the validation comprising determining whether the network at the location is performing according to expected standards (6 GHz) as associated with radios of the AP device in relation to the determined geolocation (For example, selection of the command button 430 can alter an indication of the operability indicator 420 as to operability at a location. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate a visual indicator that the 6 GHz Wi-Fi device is operable (such as permitted or allowed to operate and/or permitted or allowed to operate above a low power) at the location indicated by the location input 418. As an example, selection of a command button 430 can initiate a request from the network device 300 to a network resource 6, such as an AFC system. The request can comprise one or more location parameters associated with the location input 418 identified or provided by the user via a user interface, such as a user interface 450 or user interface 460, paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 3, Clancy with Smith teaches claim 2, Smith further teaches wherein the analysis of the physical address is performed again upon a determination that the validation indicates the expected standards are not met (please refer to Fig. 4C-D; 5A-B; where user can manually enter the address and height parameters manually in a case if not 6 GHz wi-fi device is not permitted to operate and it determines as shown in Fig. 5A-B; which channels are allowed in that specific area and/or geolocation).
Regarding claim 7, Clancy with Smith teaches The method of claim 1, Clancy further comprising:
monitoring and collecting network attributes for the set of devices (parameter from the resource, paragraph 64); and
performing the determination of the geolocation based further on the collected network attributes (While FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B utilize a selectable location input 418 with specific options, the present disclosure contemplates any type of user interface or graphical user interface for selection of an option including any of a button, a pull-down menu, a text box, a selection box, any other tool, or any combination thereof. Any one or options of the location input 418 can utilize a geolocation API and/or geolocation resource for obtaining one or more location parameters from a resource; paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 8, Clancy with Smith teaches The method of claim 1, Clancy further teaches wherein the account corresponds to a communication service provider (CSP) (ISP, paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 9, Clancy with Smith teaches claim 1, Clancy further teaches wherein the geolocation comprises longitude and latitude coordinates for the AP device (For example, the one or more location parameters 350 can be based on any of an address, a height parameter (for example, indicative of a height above ground, above sea level, below ground, or below sea level of the access point device 2), a floor number or level of a building, a latitude, a longitude, or any combination thereof, paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 10, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 11, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 18, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising (computer readable medium, paragraph 72; Fig. 6):
identifying a set of devices associated with a WiFi network at a location, the set of devices comprising an access point (AP) device (access point 2 and extender access point 3 of Fig. 2; operate in wi-fi band; paragraph 29, 31);
accessing an account associated with the WiFi network, the account comprising information related to capabilities (operability indicator) for the AP device to facilitate the WiFi network at the location (for example, any one or more client devices 4 connected directly and/or indirectly to the access point device 2. In one or more embodiments, a user can utilize a resource (such as any of an application, a link, a hyperlink, an application programming interface (API), a website (or uniform resource locator), a network resource 6, or any combination thereof) to provide an operability indicator as to whether a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device (such as the access point device 2, the extender access point device 3, or both) is permitted or allowed to operate at one or more 6 GHz frequency channels of a 6 GHz frequency band and/or operate at a transmit power that exceeds a certain transmit power, for example, above a low power, within one or more 6 GHz frequency channels of a 6 GHz frequency band for a location, such as a premises, paragraph 31);
determining, based on the analysis (Please refer to Fig. 4 A-D), a geolocation of the AP device (it determines the geolocation; In one or more embodiments, the location input 418 can be automatically filled with a default location. A default location can be based on any of information received from a scan of a QR code 440, a geolocation service (such as GPS), one or more location parameters previously stored in a memory, any other default or previously stored information, or any combination thereof. For example, “Default Address 1” can be automatically filled with a default location, paragraph 63); and
facilitating network activity via the AP device for connected devices within the set of devices based on a configuration of the AP device corresponding to the determined geolocation of the AP device (For example, selection of the command button 430 can alter an indication of the operability indicator 420 as to operability at a location. FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate a visual indicator that the 6 GHz Wi-Fi device is operable (such as permitted or allowed to operate and/or permitted or allowed to operate above a low power) at the location indicated by the location input 418. As an example, selection of a command button 430 can initiate a request from the network device 300 to a network resource 6, such as an AFC system, paragraph 66).
Even though Clancy teaches and/or discloses having a default address which can be obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to obtain from the information within the account; it is not specifically disclosed.
Smith teaches determining, based on the information within the account, a physical address for the location; analyzing the physical address (Customer locations may be determined from their account details (e.g. home address), transaction data (i.e. where they shop), or physical or instantaneous distance or position (e.g. determined from a GPS signal on their smartphone 250, and/or determined using a Bluetooth enabled location system, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), and/or determined using a Wi-Fi access point location and/or determined using a near field communications (NFC) system, when operating the mobile application 260), Fig. 11; paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Smith’s accessing address via customer database of the Wi-fi services of the ISP with the system of Clancy. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can obtain the address or the location of the service accurately and easily.
Regarding claim 19, the non-transitory computer readable medium substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
9. Claim(s) 4 – 5, 13 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. (US 2024/0196384, Clancy hereafter) in further view of Smith et al. (EP 2784738, Smith hereafter) in further view of Yates et al. (US 2022/0069925, Yates hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, Clancy with Smith teaches the method of claim 2, however, does not specifically teach performing an adjustment to at least one of a transmitter and receiver of at least one of the radios to compensate for factors causing degradation of the network at the location, the adjustment enabling the validation of the geolocation.
Yates teaches performing an adjustment to at least one of a transmitter and receiver of at least one of the radios to compensate for factors causing degradation of the network at the location, the adjustment enabling the validation of the geolocation (due to the affected signal quality, a user experience may be greatly reduced. To improve the signal quality and user experience, the example aspects of the present disclosure may automatically adjust signal strength between various components of a network to compensate for the signal fluctuations caused by changes in the temperature and/or humidity, paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to compensate for network degradation with the combined system of Clancy and Smith. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can compensate for network degradation so it can provide desired quality of the signal to the user without interruptions.
Regarding claim 5, Clancy with Smith and Yates teaches The method of claim 4, Yates teaches wherein the factors include at least one of temperature changes, component aging and external interference (temperature, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 13, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 13, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 14, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 14, thus the same rejection is applicable.
10. Claim(s) 6, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clancy et al. (US 2024/0196384, Clancy hereafter) in further view of Smith et al. (EP 2784738, Smith hereafter) in further view of Mittal et al. (US 2025/0159650).
Regarding claim 6, Clancy with Smith teaches claim 2, even though Clancy teaches wherein the validation of the determined geolocation is performed via execution of an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system (the network resource 6 can be an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system that determines and/or provides one or more frequencies within the 6 GHz frequency band available to a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device at a location (such as a premises). In one or more embodiments, network resource 6 may be accessible via a cellular communications service provider so as to connect to a client device 4, paragraph 29) ; does not specifically teach wherein the AFC system is a mechanism of a cloud system.
Mittal teaches wherein the AFC system is a cloud based (fixed access point device or a fixed client device may obtain authorization from a cloud Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC) system to operate via Wi-Fi 6 for a particular use case, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of cloud based AFC with the combined system of Clancy and Smith. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it will provide calculations remotely making; making the system more effective and faster.
Regarding claim 15, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer readable medium substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
11. 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 TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights