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 .
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/536014 filed August 31, 2023.
Examiner Note
37 C.F.R. § 1.56 establishes a legal duty for all individuals involved in a patent application to disclose any information known to be material to the patentability of the claimed invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms WI-FI and Bluetooth, which is are trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20240080757 A1 and Grayson hereinafter) in view of Amini (US 20240205873 A1 and Amini hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Grayson teaches a wireless communication device (“For embodiments in which computing device 500 may be implemented as a client device, a radio node/access network radio (e.g., cellular radio, WLAN AP, etc.), or any other device capable of wireless communications, computing device 500 may further include at least one baseband processor or modem 510”[0119] and FIG 5), comprising: at least one processor (FIG 5, element 502) configured to:
detect a wireless network of an access point (AP) configured to support wireless communication (”the coverage area provided by the given AP/radio and/or may be considered a ‘neighboring’ access network when detected by a client (i.e. wireless communication device) that is within the coverage area of a given access network…”[0041] and FIG 1 elements 102 and 110) according to a plurality of configurations (”Networks through which communications propagate can use any suitable technologies for communications including wireless communications (e.g., 4G/5G/nG, IEEE 802.11 (e.g., Wi-Fi®/Wi-Fi6®), IEEE 802.16 (e.g., Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX)), Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID), Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth™ mm.wave, Ultra-Wideband (UWB), etc.), and/or wired communications (e.g., T1 lines, T3 lines, digital subscriber lines (DSL), Ethernet, Fibre Channel, etc.).”[0144]);
select, based at least on the geolocation of the AP (“FIG. 1. In various embodiments, geolocation information for a given WLAN AP 110a, 110b, or 110c can include Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, latitude/longitude coordinates, and/or the like for the given WLAN AP 110a, 110b, or 110c.”[0045]), a configuration of the plurality of configurations to use for wireless communication with the AP (“In one embodiment, enabling the client device 102 to seek (i.e. select) connection with better alternative WLAN access network(s).”[0066]).
Grayson does not explicitly teach
identify, based at least on a plurality of weights for a plurality of modes for geolocation determination, a mode of the plurality of modes corresponding to a weight of the plurality of weights;
determine a geolocation of the AP using the mode and the weight;
In a similar field of endeavor Amini teaches
identify, based at least on a plurality of weights (“the relative positioning measurement identifies a position relative to other devices or network entities, such as an AP. In some cases, the relative positioning measurement at block 315 can include multiple measurements using different measurement techniques (i.e. weights), such as RTT, signal strength (e.g., RSSI), carrier phase, and so forth. An illustrative example of computing location is described herein with reference to FIG. 4. After determining the location of the APs, at block 320, the method 300 includes determining (e.g., by the computing system 800) a weight to apply to each positioning measurement (e.g., absolute positioning measurement and relative positioning measurement)”[0040] and FIGs 3 & 4) for a plurality of modes for geolocation determination (“the weight estimator 500 may be used by a device to iteratively determine (i.e. identify) locations of a plurality of network entities, such as the APs 210A and the APs 210B…the weight estimator 500 receives a plurality of measurements (i.e. modes) including at least one of a GNSS measurement 502, a UWB measurement 504, and an FTM measurement 506”[0049-0050] and FIG 5)”, a mode of the plurality of modes corresponding to a weight of the plurality of weights (“a first location measurement (i.e. mode) associated with a first measurement variant (i.e. weight) and a second location measurement (i.e. second mode) associated with a second measurement variant (i.e. second weight) from a first AP at block 705. In one illustrative aspect, the first location measurement and the second location measurement (i.e. plurality of modes corresponding to weights) are distinct and selected from at least one of an FTM, and UWB measurement, and an absolute positioning measurement.”[0066] and FIG 7);
determine a geolocation of the AP using the mode and the weight (“the method 300 includes determining (e.g., by the computing system 800) a weight to apply to each positioning measurement (i.e. mode) (e.g., absolute positioning measurement (i.e. GNSS for example) and relative positioning measurement) and determining a position of each AP (i.e. geolocation of the AP)”[0040] and FIG 4 element 440); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Grayson with the method suggested by Amini. The motivation would be for identifying a location of an (AP), see Amini at Abstract.
Regarding Claim 10, Grayson in view of Amini, Grayson-Amini hereinafter, suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than device form. Grayson also discloses a method (“a computer-implemented method is provided”[0008]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 19, Grayson-Amini suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than CRM form. Grayson also discloses a computer readable media (”computer readable (non-transitory) storage media”[0124]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Grayson-Amini, teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
detect a signal of the wireless network of the AP that includes a wireless local area network (WLAN) or cellular network device (”the coverage area provided by the given AP/radio and/or may be considered a ‘neighboring’ access network when detected by a client (i.e. wireless communication device) that is within the coverage area of a given access network…”[0041] and FIG 1 elements 102 and 110); and
select, from the plurality of modes, one or more modes responsive to the detection of the signal (“Each WLAN access network 112-112c and cellular access network 122 may provide a corresponding coverage area, as generally illustrated by the dashed-line circles for each access network, represents an area within which one more client devices, such as client device 102 can attach/connect to a given AP/radio (i.e. connect to selected network )”[0025] and FIG 1).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 20, Grayson-Amini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 19, respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the plurality of modes includes at least two of:
a mode for geolocation determination using a navigation satellite system, a mode for geolocation determination using a code received from a cellular network (“Cellular access network 122 provided by cellular radio 120 can be configured with network identity, such as a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identity (PLMN-ID) that consists of a 3-digit Mobile Country Code (MCC) and a 2- or 3-digit Mobile Network Code (MNC) in which the PLMN-ID can be identified by client device 102 and/or each WLAN AP 110a-110c during operation of system 100”[0037]), a mode for geolocation determination using a wireless local area network (WLAN) positioning system, a mode for geolocation determination using an internet protocol (IP) address of the wireless communication device signal (“such as client device 102 can attach/connect to a given AP/radio for voice/data (i.e. location) connectivity with one or more data networks (not shown), such as the Internet, an Internet Protocol (IP)”[0025]) and a mode for geolocation determination using a Bluetooth signal (“Bluetooth™ mm.wave”[0144]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Grayson-Amini teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine one or more weights of the plurality of weights using at least one of:
a strength of a signal of at least one of navigation satellite system or a cellular network (“neighboring access networks and access network information for the neighboring access networks can be determined/detected by a given AP/radio and/or by a client device, such as client device 102, using various detection mechanisms, such as by detecting/determining signal strength information (e.g., RSSI, SNR, etc.)”[0041]),
an error rate of the signal of at least one of the navigation satellite system or the cellular network, or
access to a wireless local area network (WLAN) positioning system or an internet protocol (IP) address (an Internet Protocol (IP)”[0025]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Grayson-Amini, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 respectively, as described above.
Grayson doesn’t explicitly teach
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify, based on the plurality of weights, a second mode of the plurality of modes corresponding to a second weight of the plurality of weights; and
determine the geolocation of the AP using the second mode and the second weight.
Further Amini teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
identify, based on the plurality of weights (“the relative positioning measurement identifies a position relative to other devices or network entities, such as an AP. In some cases, the relative positioning measurement at block 315 can include multiple measurements (i.e. weights) using different measurement techniques, such as RTT, signal strength (e.g., RSSI), carrier phase, and so forth. An illustrative example of computing location is described herein with reference to FIG. 4. After determining the location of the APs, at block 320, the method 300 includes determining (e.g., by the computing system 800) a weight to apply to each positioning measurement (e.g., absolute positioning measurement and relative positioning measurement)”[0040] and FIGs 3 & 4), a second mode of the plurality of modes corresponding to a second weight of the plurality of weights (“a first location measurement (i.e. mode) associated with a first measurement variant (i.e. weight) and a second location measurement (i.e. second mode) associated with a second measurement variant (i.e. second weight) from a first AP at block 705. In one illustrative aspect, the first location measurement and the second location measurement (i.e. plurality of modes corresponding to weights) are distinct and selected from at least one of an FTM, and UWB measurement, and an absolute positioning measurement.”[0066] and FIG 7); and
determine the geolocation of the AP using the second mode and the second weight (“the method 300 includes determining (e.g., by the computing system 800) a weight to apply to each positioning measurement (i.e. mode) (e.g., absolute positioning measurement (i.e. GNSS for example) and relative positioning measurement) and determining a position of each AP (i.e. geolocation of the AP)”[0040] and FIG 4 element 440).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Grayson with the method suggested by Amini. The motivation would be for identifying a location of an (AP), see Amini at Abstract.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Grayson- Amini, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
select, based at least on the geolocation of the AP, for the configuration, a channel of a plurality of channels of a communication band (“the client device 102 can scan all channels for WLAN access networks 110a-110c in order to find the multiple WLAN access networks 110a-110c and their corresponding SSIDs and pick (i.e. select) the best WLAN AP/SSID (i.e. channel) with which client device 102 desires connection (e.g., based on RF measurements, internal algorithms, user preferences, etc.).”[0073]); and
configure the wireless communication device according to the configuration to use the channel for wireless communication between the wireless communication device and the AP (“The transceiver 102 may be configured to allow the device 102 to access a WLAN in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 standards (e.g., IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n) (i.e. these IEEE standards define the communication protocols for WLAN devices and specify the power, channel, and band levels the can be configured).”[0027]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Grayson-Amini, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
select, based at least on the geolocation of the AP, for the configuration, a power level from a plurality of power levels for transmission of wireless communications (“…Low Power Network (LPN), Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN), Machine to Machine (M2M) network, Internet of Things (IoT) network, Ethernet network/switching system… (i.e. these example networks offer the connecting device a plurality of power levels for optimal power consumption, such as lower power modes for efficiency, or higher power modes for greater range)”[0143]); and
configure the wireless communication device according to the configuration to transmit communications of the wireless communication device to the AP at the power level (“The transceiver 102 may be configured to allow the device 102 to access a WLAN in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 standards (e.g., IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n) (i.e. these IEEE standards define the communication protocols for WLAN devices and specify the power, channel, and band levels the can be configured).”[0027]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Grayson-Amini, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 respectively, as described above.
Further Grayson teaches wherein the wireless communication device is one of:
a smart glasses device, a head wearable device, a smartphone device (“such as a computer, an electronic device such as an industrial device, automation device, enterprise device, appliance, Internet of Things (IoT) device, etc., a laptop or electronic notebook, a cellular/Wi-Fi enabled telephone/smart phone, tablet, etc. and/or any other device, component, element, or object capable of initiating voice, audio, video, media, or data exchanges within system 100.”[0038]), a mobile hotspot device, or a wireless access point (“WLAN access points (APs) or cellular radio devices”[0021]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20240080757 A1 and Grayson hereinafter) in view of Amini (US 20240205873 A1 and Amini hereinafter) and further in view of Palayur (US 20230389062 A1 and Palayur hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Grayson-Amini teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and 10 respectively, as described above.
Grayson-Amini don’t explicitly teach
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
select, based at least on the geolocation of the AP, for the configuration, a communication band of a plurality of communication bands: and
configure the wireless communication device according to the configuration to use the communication band for wireless communication between the wireless communication device and the AP.
In a similar field of endeavor Palayur teaches
select, based at least on the geolocation of the AP (“The AP 706 may share its location to receive permission from the AFC server 704 to perform various operations, including to use standard power WiFi transmission in the 6 GHz frequency band. To determine the location of the AP 706, a geolocation may be determined, such as by using a GPS location of the AP 706.”[0100]), for the configuration, a communication band of a plurality of communication bands (“The Wi-Fi® AP may be configured to provide Wi-Fi® to devices that may be communicatively coupled to the APs using a 6 GHz frequency band including one or more of the UNII-5, UNII-6, UNII-7, or UNII-8 sub-bands.”[0077]); and
configure the wireless communication device according to the configuration to use the communication band for wireless communication between the wireless communication device and the AP (“The AP 706 may be configured to transmit on the AP operational frequency that may include one or more of a UNII-5 frequency band, a UNII-6 frequency band, a UNII-7 frequency band, a UNII-8 frequency band, or a different 6 GHz frequency band.”[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Grayson-Amini with the method suggested by Palayur. The motivation would be so the operating frequencies for the AP 706 may be computed for the I/N (i.e. interference to noise) ratio is less than a threshold at the incumbent device, see Palayur at [0081].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ISSON (US 20240089902 A1) which teaches the geographical position of the sought base station is determined as a function of the geographical position of at least one other base station of the access network.
Qureshi (US 20240155549 A1) which teaches an AP may provide location information (for example, in terms of latitude coordinates, longitude coordinates, and/or elevation) to a wireless communication device, and the wireless communication device may use the location information to determine available frequencies and power levels that the AP may use.
Waters (20120058778 A1) which teaches WLAN based positioning systems determine mobile device position based on the established positions of WLAN access points visible to the device and the strength of signals exchanged between the mobile device and the access points and determining a geolocation of an AP based on positioning parameters.
Clancy (US 20240196384 A1) which teaches a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device must obtain operability information (weight based on mode) to operate at a location. Providing a user with an operability indicator for a 6 GHz Wi-Fi device at a location can conserve resources and enhance the quality of experience (QoS) for a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights