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
Applicant's remarks filed June 3, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the amendment to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-21 (see immediate rejection below).
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 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 (a method and system), both directed to one of the 4 statutory categories, recite the limitations monitoring and storing performance measurements of a mesh network on a property, identifying, based on the stored performance measurements, 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, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind because it recites data collecting/gathering and analysis. The data analysis comprises checking if network performance measurements are at or below a certain level and determining/suggesting moving an access point to said specific location 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 claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception and claim 11 recites the additional element of a processing device. The monitoring step is an activity of data gathering at specific locations. No details (additional steps) have been provided to clarify how the performance of the wireless mesh network is monitored (running traffic through a wireless network does not disclose how performance measurements are generated because running traffic through a wireless network between a station and access point does not provide any details of how performance measurement including throughput measurement is generated). No outcome beyond recommending movement of the AP is set forth. The processing device in claim 11 is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than a generic processor) that it represents 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 indicate 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 11) 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 thus are 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 2-5, 7-10, and 12-21 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 11 above. The claims recite limitations that cover 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 does 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 § 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 1-4, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje et al US 20220095120 (hereinafter Panje) in view of Akoum et al US 20170215094 (hereinafter Akoum).
Regarding claim 1, Panje discloses a method, comprising monitoring performance measurements of a wireless mesh network operating on a property (see figs. 2, 3, and 5a-5b, [0048]), the performance measurements (collected signal quality measurements, see abstract, [0039], [0049]), and storing the performance measurements in a database (storing signal quality measurements, [0006], [0040]);
Identifying, based on stored performance measurements, a region of the property where the performance of the wireless mesh network falls below a predetermined threshold (S556-S586, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0048]); and
in response to identifying a region of the property (S556-S586, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0049]), recommending movement of the AP to improve performance of the wireless network in the identified region (S586-S592, see fig. 5b, [0048]-[0049]).
Panje does not specifically disclose the performance measurements including a throughput measurement generated by running traffic through the wireless mesh network between a station (STA) and an access point (AP).
In the same field of endeavor, Akoum discloses a method comprising monitoring performance measurements of a wireless network operating on a property, the performance measurements including a throughput measurement generated by running traffic through the wireless mesh network between a station (STA) and an access point (AP) (see figs. 1-4, [0030]-[0031], [0041]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Akoum with Panje by measuring the through in a wireless mesh network, for the benefit of determining the quality of the wireless network, and thus optimizing the quality of the WLAN network experience by controlling use of devices in the wireless network.
Regarding claim 11, Panje discloses a system (see fig. 4, [0042]), comprising a processing device (see fig. 4, [0042]) configured to:
monitor measurements performance of a wireless mesh network operating on a property (see figs. 2, 3, and 5a-5b, [0048]), and store the performance measurements in a database (storing signal quality measurements, [0006], [0040]);
identify, based on the stored performance measurements, a region of the property where performance falls below a predetermined level (S556-S586, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0048]); and
in response to identifying the region of the property (S556-S586, see figs. 5a-5b, [0005], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0047]-[0049]), recommend movement of an access point (AP) to improve performance of the wireless network in the identified region (S586-S592, see fig. 5b, [0048]-[0049]).
Panje does not specifically disclose the performance measurements including a throughput measurement generated by running traffic through the wireless mesh network between a station (STA) and an access point (AP).
In the same field of endeavor, Akoum discloses a method comprising monitoring performance measurements of a wireless network operating on a property, the performance measurements including a throughput measurement generated by running traffic through the wireless mesh network between a station (STA) and an access point (AP) (see figs. 1-4, [0030]-[0031], [0041]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Akoum with Panje by measuring the through in a wireless mesh network, for the benefit of determining the quality of the wireless network, and thus optimizing the quality of the WLAN network experience by controlling use of devices in the wireless network.
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 a 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 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 a 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 stations from a list of possible stations 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights