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 Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 8, on line 3, insert “station” between “static” and “STA”. Regarding claim 10, on line 1, insert “station” between “A” and “finder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims (claims 1 and 10) recite the limitations monitoring performance of a mesh network on a property, identifying a region of the property where the performance of the mesh network falls below a predetermined threshold, and recommending movement of an access point to improve performance of the wireless mesh network in the identified region. These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. In the claims, the monitoring, identifying, and recommending steps are recited at a high level of generality such that it can be performed a user at a specific location looking at a phone to check if the signal strength bar is at or below a certain level, and determining/suggesting moving an access point to said specific location in order to improve coverage. Therefore, the concepts of monitoring, identifying and recommending, as recited in the claims, fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because nothing in the claim precludes the steps in the claims from being performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as a pen or paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception, and claim 10 recites the additional element of a STA finder comprising a processing device. The monitoring step is an activity of observing the signal quality in specific locations. No details (additional steps) have been provided to clarify how the performance of the wireless mesh network is monitored. The processing device in claim 10 is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is a generic processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do no more than identify an area with low network performance and indicating movement of an access point to said area. While this type of automation may minimize or eliminate the need for mentally performing the monitoring and recommendation, there is no change to the computer/processing device that are recited in the claim (claim 10) as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or technology. See e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys. 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Service, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and this is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as disclosed above, the processing device is at best the equivalent of adding the word “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more, for the same reason as claims 1 and 10 above. The claims recited limitations that covers performance of the limitation in the human mind, and nothing in the claim precludes the steps in the claims from being performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons disclosed above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is the same as claim 6, and also depends on claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panje et al US 20220095120 (hereinafter Panje).
Regarding claim 1, Panje discloses a method, comprising monitoring performance of a wireless mesh network operating on a property (see figs. 2, 3, and 5a-5b, [0048]); and
in response to identifying a region of the property where the performance of the wireless mesh network falls below a predetermined threshold (S556, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0048]), recommending movement of an access point (AP) of a plurality of APs to improve performance of the wireless network in the identified region (S560, see fig. 5b, [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Panje discloses a STA finder (see fig. 4, [0042]), comprising a processing device (see fig. 4, [0042]) configured to:
monitor performance of a wireless mesh network operating on a property (see figs. 2, 3, and 5a-5b, [0048]); and
in response to identifying a region of the property where the performance of the wireless mesh network falls below a predetermined threshold (S556, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0048]), recommend movement of an access point (AP) of a plurality of APs to improve performance of the wireless network in the identified region (S560, see fig. 5b, [0048]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 as applied to claims 1 and 11, Panje further discloses wherein monitoring performance of the wireless mesh network comprises monitoring a database that includes wireless network performance correlated with location on the property (see figs. 5a-5b, S522-S532, S568, S572, S576, [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13 as applied to claims 2 and 12, Panje further discloses wherein the wireless network performance data is updated in real-time or near real-time (S596, see fig. 5b).
Regarding claims 4 and 14 as applied to claims 2 and 12, Panje further discloses determining the movement recommendation by identifying that the AP is a closest AP of the plurality of APs to the region of the property where the performance of the wireless mesh network falls below a predetermined threshold level and including a recommendation to move the AP toward the region in the movement recommendation (dead zone, see [0044]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 as applied to claims 1 and 11, Panje further discloses prior to monitoring performance of the wireless network, receiving dimensions of the property and locations of each AP of the plurality of APs from a user (see S526, S568, figs. 5a and 5b).
Regarding claims 7 and 17 as applied to claim 1, Panje further discloses prior to monitoring performance of the wireless network, receiving dimensions of the property and locations of each AP of the plurality of APs from a user (see S526, S568, figs. 5a and 5b).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 as applied to claims 1 and 11, Panje further requesting a user to identify one or more static STAs from a list of possible STAs with changes in signal strength values below a threshold value (S522, S526, S546).
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to monitoring performance of the wireless network, receiving a selection of a floorplan for the property, dimensions of the floorplan and locations for each AP of the plurality of APs within the floorplan from a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
White et al US 20230048092 discloses device-anonymous performance monitoring in a wireless network.
Strauch et al US 11,134,391 discloses guided placement of a wireless device for optimum performance.
Vardarajan et al US 20170353245 discloses optimizing placement of wireless range extender.
Pochop, Jr. US 20120129559 discloses automatic access point location, planning, and optimization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648