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 .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 18 June 2026.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claims 1 and 13 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 7-8] with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on page 8, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “correlate a performance of the wireless mesh network for the STA with the location; and in response to the performance of the wireless mesh network in the location falling below a performance threshold, generate a recommendation to move one or more of the plurality of access points to improve performance of the wireless mesh network in the location”.
The Examiner respectfully submits as follows. The claim is reciting broad limitations such as correlation of performance, without detailing how this correlation takes place. Furthermore, based on signal quality, the claim is just generating a recommendation. This recommendation is understood as any message being transmitted between the APs and the STA with an intended use of improving performance. To move forward in the prosecution, the Examiner respectfully suggests the inclusion of active limitations that detail how the correlation is being performance, how the APs are moved upon the identification of low performance and/or how the location is being calculated (e.g. Figs. 7-12 of the instant application).
For the purpose of the examination, reference Chari is being withdrawn and a newly found reference Moreman is incorporated.
Newly found reference Moreman discloses a system (Figs. 3-6) which, based on low-threshold performance of the system and signal strengths between STA and APs in a determined location, relocation of APs is performed and/or recommended to improve signal quality [Paragraphs 3, 34, 46, 59, 69].
Regarding claim 13, this claim has been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19 have been amended. Claims 7-8 and 14-16 have been canceled. Claims 21-25 have been added. Thus, claims 1-6, 9-13, 17-25 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
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.
Claims 22-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 22:
At line 1, “the placement location” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 23:
At line 1, “the processing device” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 25:
At line 3, it is unclear whether it should be “the one or more of the plurality of access points”.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9-13, 17-20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0373639) in view of Moreman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0282024).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a station (STA) finder (Fig. 1), comprising:
a processor (processor 204) configured to:
monitor signal strengths associated with a STA for each of a plurality of access points supporting a wireless mesh network (UE 115 monitors RSSI associated with UE 115 in relation to APs 105 [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]);
detect that a first signal strength for the STA at a first access point of the plurality of access points is increasing through a threshold signal strength at a first time (as the UE 115 moves towards the AP 105, RSSI increases measured as RSSI thresholds [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]);
determine a location of the STA relative to the first access point, based on changes in the first signal strength and/or a second signal strength for the STA (location of the UE 115 is constantly determined, for example, in relation to AP 105a; therefore, location of UE 115b when the UE 115b is at the border of coverage 110a is prior to when the UE 115b moves towards AP 105a, thus the RSSI is constantly increasing/decreasing as the UEs moves towards/away 105a [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]);
[
.
However, Zhou does not explicitly mention: correlate performance of the wireless mesh network for the STA device at the second time with the location; and in response to the performance of the wireless mesh network in the location falling below a performance threshold, generate a recommendation to move one or more of the plurality of access points to improve performance of the wireless mesh network in the location.
Moreman teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
correlate performance of the wireless mesh network for the STA device at the second time with the location; and in response to the performance of the wireless mesh network in the location falling below a performance threshold, generate a recommendation to move one or more of the plurality of access points to improve performance of the wireless mesh network in the location (Moreman discloses a system (Figs. 3-6) which, based on low-threshold performance of the system and signal strengths between STA and APs in a determined location, relocation of APs is performed and/or recommended to improve signal quality [Paragraphs 3, 34, 46, 59, 69]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Zhou) by recommending changes in the network (as taught by Moreman) for the purpose of properly collecting recommendations for signal qualities (Moreman – Paragraphs 5).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the second signal strength is associated with a second access point of the plurality of access points (RSSI is also estimated based on association of second AP 105b [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 2, wherein the second signal strength is lower than the first signal strength at the first time (RSSI in relation to AP 105b is lower to AP 105a [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]) and higher than signal strengths associated with any of the other access points of the plurality of access points at the first time (thus, when the UE is at a certain distance, the RSSI at the APs 105 is higher than other possible APs in the mesh [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the processor is disposed within the STA (processor 204).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the processor is located in a cloud server ([Paragraph 94]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the processor is housed within an access point of the plurality of plurality of access points ([Paragraph 26]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the location is a STA zone defining a spatial area that is determined to include a position of the STA finder at the second time (the location of the UE 115b is determined at every moment including at border of network 110a which is at the second time, prior to when it moves toward AP 105a [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 9, wherein the STA zone has a hemi-spherical shape or a quarter spherical shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 9, wherein the STA zone is defined using a coordinate system based on a position of the first access point relative to the second access point of the plurality of access points (each of the APs 105 has its own zone for the STAs/UEs based on the position of the APs) and wherein a second signal strength for the STA at the second access point at the first time is less than the first signal strength and greater than any of the signal strengths received for the other access points of the plurality of access points at the first time (the RSSIs increase and decrease according to the UEs moving towards/away the AP, and also based on the allowance of a specific AP to a secondary AP to receive the location/RSSI of the UE [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the first signal strength is a received signal strength indicator measured at the first access point ([Paragraph 45]).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Zhou further teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the location is a STA zone defining a spatial area that is determined to include a position of the STA finder at the second time (the location of the UE 115b is determined at every moment including at border of network 110a which is at the second time, prior to when it moves toward AP 105a [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the STA zone has a hemispherical shape or a quarter spherical shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou further teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the STA zone is defined using a coordinate system based on a position of the first access point relative to the second access point of the plurality of access points (each of the APs 105 has its own zone for the STAs/UEs based on the position of the APs) and wherein a second signal strength for the STA at the second access point at the first time is less than the first signal strength and greater than any of the signal strengths received for the other access points of the plurality of access points at the first time (the RSSIs increase and decrease according to the UEs moving towards/away the AP, and also based on the allowance of a specific AP to a secondary AP to receive the location/RSSI of the UE [Paragraphs 38, 41-45]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou further teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first signal strength is a received signal strength indicator measured at the first access point ([Paragraph 45]).
Regarding claim 23, Zhou further teaches the STA finder of claim 1, wherein the processing device comprises a cloud server configured to receive, from each of the plurality of access points, periodic reports of a signal strength associated with the STA (all elements in the network provide periodic reports of signal strengths [Paragraphs 43-44]).
Regarding claim 25, Moreman further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising causing display, on a layout of the wireless mesh network, of an indicium indicating a recommended placement of, or a direction of movement for, the one or more access points (recommendation for placing APs is displayed [Paragraph 38]).
Claims 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0373639) in view of Moreman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0282024) and further in view of Chari et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0302096).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Zhou and Moreman teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Zhou and Moreman does not explicitly mention: wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to add a further access point to the wireless mesh network at a placement location determined to improve the performance of the wireless mesh network.
Chari teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the recommendation comprises a recommendation to add a further access point to the wireless mesh network at a placement location determined to improve the performance of the wireless mesh network (recommendations for adding an AP 1222 is provided, as in Fig. 12, at a location to improve signal quality [Paragraphs 22, 120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Zhou) by recommending changes in the network (as taught by Moreman) by recommending changes in the network (as taught by Chari) for the purpose of optimizing wireless network (Chari – Paragraphs 5).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Zhou and Moreman teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Zhou and Moreman does not explicitly mention: wherein the placement location is determined based on a location of a stationary STA whose signal strength monitored at one of the plurality of access points is below a threshold and sufficient to extend the wireless mesh network.
Chari teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the placement location is determined based on a location of a stationary STA whose signal strength monitored at one of the plurality of access points is below a threshold and sufficient to extend the wireless mesh network (recommendations for adding an AP 1222 is provided, as in Fig. 12, at a location to improve signal quality, based on signal quality of stationary stations [Paragraphs 22, 120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Zhou) by recommending changes in the network (as taught by Moreman) by recommending changes in the network (as taught by Chari) for the purpose of optimizing wireless network (Chari – Paragraphs 5).
Regarding claim 24, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
July 19, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights