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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action in response to application filed, with the above serial number, on 28 March 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1-20 are therefore pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6, 16 recites the limitation "the mesh network" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the method 1of claim 4" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “best” in claim 4, 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al (hereinafter “Lam”, 2024/0163837) in view of Veillette (hereinafter “Veillette”, 2012/0192025).
As per Claim 1, Lam discloses a controller in a network comprising a server and at least a first agent and a second agent (at least paragraph 45, 48, 96-97, 103; controller 112 and access points 116 agent software; AFC server), wherein the controller is arranged to, upon an initial boot up of all devices, determine if the first agent and the second agent are onboarding, when it is determined the first agent and the second agent are onboarding (at least paragraph 45, 50, 58, 91-92, 96-97, 101; access point controller collaborating with access point agents to evaluate geolocation in order to connect with AFC server for operation/approval/onboard to a 6Ghz network; access points may be powered on and starting geolocation process from access point boot event).
Lam fails to disclose the controller is arranged to wait to receive respective status messages from the first agent and the second agent, consolidate information in the received status messages into a single query, and send the single query to the server. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Veillette. Veillette discloses, in an analogous art, an access point that aggregates status change messages, such as being powered on, from child mesh devices into a single report to send to a server (at least Veillette paragraph 36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Veillette’s aggregation with Lam as Veillette teaches this being well known to be an efficient reporting process and when there are a potentially large number of mesh devices, this can efficiently report status without each mesh device sending a message through other mesh devices to a central server, which would obviously clog up a network with messages.
As per Claim 2. The controller of claim 1, wherein the status messages from the first agent and second agent comprise respective geo locations and channel groups of the first agent and second agent (at least paragraph 58, 95-97; channel, geolocation).
As per Claim 3. The controller of claim 2, wherein the controller is further arranged to receive a single response from the server in response to the single query, the single response comprising an allowed list of channels for the first agent and the second agent according to their respective geo locations and channel groups (at least par. 45, 57-58; approved channels from AFC server; Veillette paragraph 50).
As per Claim 4. The controller of claim 3, wherein the controller is further arranged to determine a best channel for both the first agent and the second agent according to the single response from the server, and generate respective channel selection requests to the first agent and the second agent, the channel selection request indicating the best channel and a common allowed channel list (at least paragraph 52-53, 103; which permitted AFC channel to use).
As per Claim 5. The controller of claim 3, wherein when the single response indicates that at least one of the first agent and the second agent is not allowed to operate on 6GHz frequency, the controller is arranged to send a tear down message to the corresponding agent for informing the agent to switch to a different frequency (at least paragraph 103-104, 56-58, 4; restrict channels or not locating access point and no channels safely can be used).
As per Claim 6. The controller of claim 1, wherein the controller performs the determination within a stabilization time of the mesh network (at least paragraph 101; After the geolocation discovery process has stabilized, the access-point controller may check to see whether all the access points in the set of access points can calculate their locations).
As per Claim 7. The controller of claim 4, wherein when at least one of the first agent and second agent reboots, the controller is arranged to receive an updated status message from the agent, determine/compare a geo location of the agent according to the updated status message with a previous geo location of the agent according to the status message, and when the geo location has not changed and a remaining time for the allowed channel list has not reached a timeout, the controller is arranged to directly send the previous channel selection request without sending a query to the server (at least paragraph 85-86, 96-97, 101, 103; access point boot event, agent retrieves geolocation, locations being updated; access-point controller may store a geolocation table (or data structure) with the locations and radio maps of each of the access points. In addition, the access-point controller may store an AFC table (or data structure) that contains the available AFC channels and expiration times for each of the access points. Note that an AFC agent may track the AFC status of each access point and may query an AFC server for new available channels as needed/when necessary; if not necessary not querying AFC).
As per Claim 8. The controller of claim 4, wherein when the controller determines a remaining time for the allowed channel list is about to reach timeout, the controller sends an updated single query to the server comprising updated respective geo locations of the first agent and the second agent (at least paragraph 58, 103; approved channels or frequencies from AFC server 130 may be valid for a time interval; combined with Veillette paragraph 36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 47 of change in status).
As per Claim 9. The controller of claim 8, wherein the controller is arranged to receive an updated single response from the server in response to the updated single query, the updated single response comprising an allowed channel list according to the updated respective geo locations, and when timeout is reached, the server refreshes, and the controller is arranged to send an update message to any of the first agent and the second agent when the updated single response indicates a change in their allowed channel list (at least paragraph 58, 103; approved channels or frequencies from AFC server 130 may be valid for a time interval, requesting approval from AFC after time interval for new channels for a given access point; combined with Veillette paragraph 36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 47 of change in status).
As per Claim 10. The controller of claim 9, wherein when the server refresh occurs, when a current respective operating channel of the first agent and the second agent is blocked, the controller sends a respective backhaul steer command to the first agent and the second agent for instructing the first agent and the second agent to switch to a different operating frequency, and the controller selects a new common channel and updates the first agent and the second agent with the new common channel (at least paragraph 58, 103, 125; switch radio from a given channel to a different channel; approved channels or frequencies from AFC server 130 may be valid for a time interval, requesting approval from AFC after time interval for new channels for a given access point; combined with Veillette paragraph 36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 47 of change in status).
Claims 11-20 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY G TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571)272-3889. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights