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 Amendment
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 8/25/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed, applicant argues, in substance:
a) In page 4 of the response filed, applicant argues that Pera et al. (WO 2016/032615 A1, hereinafter Pera) fails to disclose the claimed limitation of aggregating a “selected one of a plurality of discrete frequency ranges to obtain aggregated second data” because in Pera devices connected to an access point (AP) each collect “an array of noise measurements at each of a plurality of channel frequencies and this array of noise measurements, by frequency, is sent to the AP at specified times” which is, allegedly, not the same as aggregating data over frequency.
In response to argument (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard.
Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, the term “aggregating” could be interpreted as collecting (e.g., see Merriam-Webster definition, page 1, 1st definition under “verb”, 2024, “to collect or gather into a mass or whole”).
Therefore, “aggregating the samples over a […] selected one of a plurality of discrete frequency ranges” could be interpreted as collecting samples over a selected discrete frequency range.
As admitted by applicant, in page 4 of the response filed, in Pera, “an array of noise measurements at each of a plurality of channel frequencies” is collected by each device and transmitted to the AP. Therefore, the AP receives or collects the “array of noise measurements at each of a plurality of channel frequencies”.
Moreover, Pera discloses that “a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices at each of the one channel frequencies” (¶[0255]) (suggesting that historical data was aggregated by the AP to perform a calculation) and also that an “aggregate data rate may be determined for the network; the aggregate data rate may be a function of all or a subset of the devices (e.g., average, mean, median, weighted average, maximum, minimum, etc.) 2307. An aggregate data rate may be determined at each frequency channel to be examined” (¶[0255]) suggesting that even if the definition of the term aggregate goes beyond simply collecting data (e.g., see definition “2” of the verb aggregate in page 2 of the Merriam-Webster definition, “the whole sum or amount”) Pera would still disclose the limitation.
Finally, Pera suggests that the calculation may be performed either sequentially at each channel, or in parallel for different frequencies (¶[0256]), that is, over a selected discrete frequency range.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Pera et al. (WO 2016/032615 A1, hereinafter Pera).
Regarding claim 1, Pera discloses a method for aggregating samples of Proactive Network Maintenance (PNM) data representing state information of a communications network (¶[0120], "monitoring network health, including in particular, the health of an access point (AP)"; ¶[0121], "This information is generally determined in a periodic basis and updated, and may include or incorporate both the most recent (e.g., within the last few seconds to minutes) as well as recent historical information (e.g., from the previous minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.)"),
each sample associated with one of a plurality of different frequency ranges (¶[0255], "collect historical frequency spectral information for one or more devices linked to an access point (AP). [...] an aggregate data rate may be determined for the network; the aggregate data rate may be a function of all or a subset of the devices (e.g., average, mean, median, weighted average, maximum, minimum, etc.) 2307. An aggregate data rate may be determined at each frequency channel to be examined"), the method comprising:
collecting sequential samples of the data (¶[0255], "collect historical frequency spectral information for one or more devices linked to an access point (AP). This information may be collected, stored, or held, in the AP 2301. Usage data may also be collected, stored and/or held in the AP. For example, usage data (e.g., signal strength) for the one or more devices linked to AP may be collected in the AP 2303"; ¶[0121], "This information is generally determined in a periodic basis and updated, and may include or incorporate both the most recent (e.g., within the last few seconds to minutes) as well as recent historical information (e.g., from the previous minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.)");
aggregating the samples over a selected first one of a temporal interval and a selected one of a plurality of discrete frequency ranges to obtain aggregated first data (¶[0121], "This information is generally determined in a periodic basis and updated, and may include or incorporate both the most recent (e.g., within the last few seconds to minutes) as well as recent historical information (e.g., from the previous minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.)"; ¶[0255], "Thereafter, at each of a plurality of channel frequencies, an interference plus noise (SINR) may be determined for each of the one or more devices 2305, and a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices at each of the one channel frequencies");
aggregating the first data over the other one of the temporal interval and the selected one of a plurality of discrete frequency ranges to obtain aggregated second data (¶[0255], "Thereafter, at each of a plurality of channel frequencies, an interference plus noise (SINR) may be determined for each of the one or more devices 2305, and a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices at each of the one channel frequencies [...] an aggregate data rate may be determined for the network; the aggregate data rate may be a function of all or a subset of the devices (e.g., average, mean, median, weighted average, maximum, minimum, etc.) 2307. An aggregate data rate may be determined at each frequency channel to be examined"; ¶[0256], "The aggregate data rate at each frequency may then be divided by the channel width to determine the spectral efficiency at that frequency 2309. The resulting set of channels and spectral efficiencies may then be stored. In some variations (as illustrated in FIG. 23), the steps may be performed iteratively, e.g., by sequentially determining the spectral efficiency at different frequencies and repeating the process at different frequencies. Alternatively, this procedure may be performed in parallel for different frequencies, or some combination of parallel and sequential, until a spectral efficiency has been determined for all of the frequency channels within the frequency range 231 1"); and
configuring the network based on the aggregated second data (¶[0257], "An apparatus, such as an access point device, may be configured to optimize the channel selection using a method such as that described above").
Regarding claim 2, Pera discloses the method of claim 1 where communications network includes a plurality of network components (¶[0255], "collect historical frequency spectral information for one or more devices linked to an access point (AP)"), and
the method separately aggregates data collected from each of the network components (¶[0255], "Usage data may also be collected, stored and/or held in the AP. For example, usage data (e.g., signal strength) for the one or more devices linked to AP may be collected in the AP 2303. Thereafter, at each of a plurality of channel frequencies, an interference plus noise (SINR) may be determined for each of the one or more devices 2305, and a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices").
Regarding claim 3, Pera discloses the method of claim 2 where the method separately temporally aggregates data collected from each of the network components and separately frequency aggregates data collected from each of the network components (¶[0255], "Usage data may also be collected, stored and/or held in the AP. For example, usage data (e.g., signal strength) for the one or more devices linked to AP may be collected in the AP 2303. Thereafter, at each of a plurality of channel frequencies, an interference plus noise (SINR) may be determined for each of the one or more devices 2305, and a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices at each of the one channel frequencies [...] an aggregate data rate may be determined for the network; the aggregate data rate may be a function of all or a subset of the devices (e.g., average, mean, median, weighted average, maximum, minimum, etc.) 2307. An aggregate data rate may be determined at each frequency channel to be examined").
Regarding claim 6, Pera discloses the method of claim 1 where temporal aggregation is performed before frequency aggregation (¶[0255], "Usage data may also be collected, stored and/or held in the AP. For example, usage data (e.g., signal strength) for the one or more devices linked to AP may be collected in the AP 2303. Thereafter, at each of a plurality of channel frequencies, an interference plus noise (SINR) may be determined for each of the one or more devices 2305, and a data rate may be determined from the SINR and historical frequency spectral information specific to each of the one or more devices at each of the one channel frequencies [...] an aggregate data rate may be determined for the network; the aggregate data rate may be a function of all or a subset of the devices (e.g., average, mean, median, weighted average, maximum, minimum, etc.) 2307. An aggregate data rate may be determined at each frequency channel to be examined").
Regarding claim 8, Pera discloses the method of claim 1 where the collected PNM data varies in an unpredictable manner (¶[0255], inherent of the type of data collected (e.g., signal strength, SINR)).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pera (WO 2016/032615 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 6956866 B1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Pera discloses the method of claim 2 where method temporally aggregates data from each network component (¶[0121], "This information is generally determined in a periodic basis and updated, and may include or incorporate both the most recent (e.g., within the last few seconds to minutes) as well as recent historical information (e.g., from the previous minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.)").
Pera does not disclose that the aggregation of data is based on data collected according to a frequency of data collection that varies from a first network component relative to a second network component.
Li discloses data collected according to a frequency of data collection that varies from a first network component relative to a second network component (col. 1, line 61 to col. 2, line 9, "In one embodiment, an apparatus includes multiple counting elements, where each of the multiple counting elements typically maintains different packet statistic counts for multiple connections. Each connection or element has an associated required minimum collection rate. A data structure is used to indicate an assignment of each of the connections or elements to one of multiple collection groups, with each of the multiple collection groups having a different collection rate. The connections or elements are assigned to a collection group so that a particular collection rate of a particular collection group exceeds the minimum collection rates of any of the plurality of connections or elements assigned to the particular collection group. A collector then acquires data for the plurality of connections or from the plurality of elements according to the different collection rates of the collection groups").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pera in view of Li so that the aggregation of data is based on data collected according to a frequency of data collection that varies from a first network component relative to a second network component.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "polling intervals selected based on the needs of the system" (Li, col. 5, lines 2-5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pera (WO 2016/032615 A1) in view of Poola et al. (US 20160080226 A1, hereinafter Poola).
Regarding claim 5, Pera discloses the method of claim 4.
The combined system of Pera and Li does not disclose that the frequency of data collection associated with a device is based on topology information of the network.
Poola discloses that the frequency of data collection associated with a device is based on topology information of the network (¶[0030], "Collection frequencies are determined by the frequency logic 420 on a per event basis, and a recommended collection frequency for a given event is recommended for all metrics that are related to the event. Thus, returning to FIG. 1, a collection frequency that is determined for an event involving source metric I and a deployment topology that includes target type relationship A will be recommended for metrics a, b, and c").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Pera and Li in view of Poola so that the frequency of data collection associated with a device is based on topology information of the network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a system to "adapt the recommended metrics and collection frequencies as the enterprise system changes" (Poola, ¶[0013]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pera (WO 2016/032615 A1) in view of Kishore ("Router vs Switch vs Hub vs Modem vs Access Point vs Gateway", Help Desk Geek, 2018).
Regarding claim 9, Pera discloses the method of claim 1.
Pera does not disclose that the PNM data represents data collected by and/or sent from a cable modem.
Kishore discloses that the PNM data represents data collected by and/or sent from a cable modem (page 2, "our “modem” from your ISP is probably a modem, router, switch and access point all-in-one"; page 5, "Above is a typical cable modem. It has a single coaxial port for the cable connection coming in from your ISP" - in Pera, the data is collected by an access point, see Pera, ¶[0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pera in view of Kishore so that the PNM data represents data collected by and/or sent from a cable modem.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because all-in-one devices are a convenient solution for users.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pera (WO 2016/032615 A1) in view of Szilagyi et al. (US 20170373950 A1, hereinafter Szilagyi).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Pera and Kishore discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 9, above, discloses the method of claim 9.
The combined system of Pera and Kishore does not disclose that the PNM data is separately collected in an upstream direction from the cable modem and a downstream direction to the cable modem.
Szilagyi discloses that PNM data is separately collected in an upstream direction from the cable modem and a downstream direction to the cable modem (¶[0065], "individual measurements that are obtained by each CE agent without synchronization with other CE agents; the individual QoS measurements include (but are not limited to) the throughput (collected separately in the UL and DL directions) RTT, the delay/RTT jitter and the packet loss (collected separately in the end-to-end, upstream and downstream contexts)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Pera and Kishore in view of Szilagyi so that the PNM data is separately collected in an upstream direction from the cable modem and a downstream direction to the cable modem.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "providing real-time correlated insight to the user behavior, to the attributes of the application sessions, and to QoE of the applications and the status of the network, through the collection of relevant user, application, QoE and network side QoS measurements and KPIs" (Szilagyi, ¶[0045]).
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 BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446