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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 9-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nijim (US 10484114).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/17/19, Nijim teaches A method comprising the steps of:
determining a scan value resulting from a network scan ([Col.9, lines 26-40], “a data source 114 operating as a signal data source can be a dedicated device for measuring WiFi signals, wherein the device comprises a WiFi signal strength meter ... the user or a technician can use a particular mobile device operating as a signal data source to measure WiFi signal levels at various locations ... take signal measurements, ... to provide the measurements ... to the signal data collector 206.” And Col.10, lines 4-15], “Interference data can be provided to the interference data collector 208 via one or more data sources 114.” In other words, a particular mobile device is used for scanning interference.);
comparing the scan value to a predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” In other words, the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.);
in response to the scan value meeting the predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).”),
determining a presence of an electromagnetic interference source at or near a premise ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area. And [Col.9, lines 45-65], “radio frequency interference can be caused by a physical obstruction or by an unwanted signal that occurs at the same time and frequency as a data signal. For example, interference to wireless networks may come from a variety of sources, such as other wireless devices (e.g., baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless phones), appliances (e.g., as microwaves, refrigerators), other proximate WiFi networks, etc.”); and
generating a premise map that includes an indication of a location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/3/20, Nijim teaches wherein the scan value comprises one or more of:
a sensor device electromagnetic energy scan value ([Col.9, lines 26-40], “a data source 114 operating as a signal data source can be a dedicated device for measuring WiFi signals, wherein the device comprises a WiFi signal strength meter ... the user or a technician can use a particular mobile device operating as a signal data source to measure WiFi signal levels at various locations ... take signal measurements, ... to provide the measurements ... to the signal data collector 206.” And [Col.10, lines 4-15], “Interference data can be provided to the interference data collector 208 via one or more data sources 114.” In other words, a particular mobile device is used for scanning interference.),
a hub device IEEE 802.11 detection scan value, and a hub device IEEE 802.15.4 detection scan value.
Regarding claim(s) 4, Nijim teaches outputting, for display on a display device, a graphical indication of the premise map and the indication of the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Nijim teaches wherein comparing the scan value to the predetermined scan value threshold comprises comparing, by a hub device ([Fig.2 and Col.3, lines 50-65], signal data visualization system 104” “The signal data visualization system 104 is illustrative of ... device operative to generate and provide a visual representation 120 of WiFi signal performance.”), the scan value to the predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” In other words, the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Nijim teaches determining, based on the scan value ([Col.10, lines 3-15], “Interference data can be provided to the interference data collector 208 via one or more data sources 114” And [col.9, lines40-65], “interference to wireless networks may come from a variety of sources, such as other wireless devices (e.g., baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless phones), appliances (e.g., as microwaves, refrigerators), other proximate WiFi networks, etc.”), the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area. In other words, location of source of interference is determined based on interference measurement measured by a device 102.).
Regarding claim(s) 10, Nijim teaches wherein determining the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source comprises, when the scan value includes a sensor device electromagnetic energy scan value ([Col.9, lines 26-40], “a data source 114 operating as a signal data source can be a dedicated device for measuring WiFi signals, wherein the device comprises a WiFi signal strength meter ... the user or a technician can use a particular mobile device operating as a signal data source to measure WiFi signal levels at various locations ... take signal measurements, ... to provide the measurements ... to the signal data collector 206.” And [Col.10, lines 4-15], “Interference data can be provided to the interference data collector 208 via one or more data sources 114.” In other words, a particular mobile device is used for scanning interference.):
determining a sensor device that was subjected to the network scan to produce the sensor device electromagnetic energy scan value ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.);
determining a location of the sensor device ([Col.9, lines 25-40], “determine coordinates of the locations at which the measurements are recorded.”); and
determining that the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source comprises the location of the sensor device ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Nijim teaches wherein determining the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source comprises, when the scan value includes one or more of a hub device IEEE 802.11 detection scan value ([Col.4, lines 35-50], “IEEE 802.11 communications standards”) and a hub device IEEE 802.15.4 detection scan value:
determining a hub device that was subjected to the network scan to produce the one or more of the hub device IEEE 802.11 detection scan value and the hub device IEEE 802.15.4 detection scan value ([Col.9, lines 26-40], “a data source 114 operating as a signal data source can be a dedicated device for measuring WiFi signals, wherein the device comprises a WiFi signal strength meter ... the user or a technician can use a particular mobile device operating as a signal data source to measure WiFi signal levels at various locations ... take signal measurements, ... to provide the measurements ... to the signal data collector 206.” And [Col.10, lines 4-15], “Interference data can be provided to the interference data collector 208 via one or more data sources 114.” In other words, a particular mobile device is used for scanning interference.);
determining a location of the hub device ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.); and
determining that the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source comprises the location of the hub device ([Fig.3D and Col.15, lines 4-15], “signal interference 320 (e.g., as measured)” occurs in patio area.).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Nijim teaches wherein the predetermined scan value threshold comprises a low predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62 and Fig.3D], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” Cool color corresponds to low interference.), and wherein comparing the scan value to the predetermined scan value threshold comprises:
comparing the scan value to the low predetermined scan value threshold (the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.);
comparing the scan value to a high predetermined scan value threshold, wherein the high predetermined scan value threshold is more extreme than the low predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62 and Fig.3D], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” hot color corresponds to high interference.);
in response to the scan value meeting each of the low predetermined scan value threshold and the high predetermined scan value threshold, determining a presence of high electromagnetic interference at the electromagnetic interference source at or near the premise([Fig.3D], the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.); and
in response to the scan value meeting the low predetermined scan value threshold and the scan value failing to meet the high predetermined scan value threshold, determining a presence of low electromagnetic interference at the electromagnetic interference source at or near the premise ([Fig.3D], the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.).
Regarding claim(s) 13, Nijim teaches comparing the scan value to a medium predetermined scan value threshold, wherein the medium predetermined scan value threshold is between the low predetermined scan value threshold and the high predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62 and Fig.3D], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” Since there is a “value-color spectrum,” so there will be a threshold for a color that is between cool and hot.); and
in response to the scan value meeting each of the low predetermined scan value threshold and the medium predetermined scan value threshold and the scan value failing to meet the high predetermined scan value threshold, determining a presence of medium electromagnetic interference at the electromagnetic interference source at or near the premise ([Fig.3D], the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Nijim teaches wherein determining the presence of the high electromagnetic interference comprises determining the presence of the high electromagnetic interference in response to the scan value meeting each of the low predetermined scan value threshold, the medium predetermined scan value threshold, and the high predetermined scan value threshold, and wherein determining the presence of the low electromagnetic interference comprises determining the presence of the low electromagnetic interference in response to the scan value meeting the low predetermined scan value threshold and the scan value failing to meet each of the medium predetermined scan value threshold and the high predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62 and Fig.3D], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” Since there is a “value-color spectrum,” so there will be a threshold for a color that is between cool and hot.).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Nijim teaches generating the indication of the location at the premise of the electromagnetic interference source to graphically indicate whether the electromagnetic interference source is producing the low electromagnetic interference, the medium electromagnetic interference, or the high electromagnetic interference ([Fig.3D], the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Nijim teaches wherein the one or more communication units are further configured to send the premise map to the hub device for display on a display device operatively connected to the hub device ([Fig.2 and Fig.3D]).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijim in view of LaFrance (US 20120206274).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Nijim teaches wherein comparing the scan value to the predetermined scan value threshold comprises comparing, by a ... device located outside of the premise ([Fig.2 and Col.3, lines 50-65], signal data visualization system 104” “The signal data visualization system 104 is illustrative of ... device operative to generate and provide a visual representation 120 of WiFi signal performance.” The signal data visualization system 104 may be located outside of a house.), the scan value to the predetermined scan value threshold ([Col.11, lines 55-62], “These interference values can be correlated with a value-color spectrum ... to show the interference values in a heatmap visualization on the layout image. For example, WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” In other words, the measured interference is compared to a threshold to determine a color correspond to an interference level.).
However, Nijim does not teach a server device.
In an analogous art, LaFrance teaches wherein comparing ... value to the predetermined ... value threshold ([0032], “send the data to a server (or the server could poll the meter for the data), the server could compare usage data 40 and threshold data 41, and then the server could send that comparison data to the meter.”) comprises comparing, by a server device located outside ([Fig.4], server 210) of the premise ([Fig.4], “a utility meter 110”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nijim to specify server as taught by LaFrance. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to reduce computation burden at a customer premise.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijim in view of Okumura (US 20180359729).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Okumura teaches wherein the scan value comprises one or more of:
an indication of whether a sensor device lost synchronization and then later regained synchronization, a number of times the sensor device lost synchronization and then later regained synchronization, a number of non-TDMA messages detected at or near the premise,
a number of free channels to which communication can be migrated to ([Abs], “a channel detection unit which detects unused channels; and a control device which switches the communication mode of the communication module between the first mode and the second mode based on the strength measured by the strength measurement unit of a signal received from another wireless communication device and the number of unused channels detected out of plural channels by the channel detection unit.”), and
an energy level of channels different than a current channel over which communication is occurring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nijim to specify free channels as taught by Okumura. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to switch between different modes.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijim in view of Shin (US 20070280237).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Shin teaches the premise includes a time division multiple access (TDMA) protocol-enabled wireless network ([0050], “IEEE 802.15.3 is based on Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), which guarantees stable QoS, and is particularly suited to multimedia AV streaming in home networks.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nijim to specify TDMA channels as taught by Shin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to have stable QoS.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 6, 3rd paragraph)
“correlating a measured value to a color along a continuous spectrum for purposes of visualization is not the same as comparing that value to a predetermined threshold. Nijim's value-color spectrum is a continuous mapping of measured interference values to display colors; the cited passages do not disclose a predetermined scan value threshold, do not disclose comparing a scan value to such a predetermined threshold, and do not disclose determining a presence of an electromagnetic interference source in response to a scan value meeting a predetermined threshold. Assigning a color along a gradient is not a determination that a value has met a threshold.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cited teaching [Col.11, lines 45-65 and Fig.3C], which discloses “WiFi signal interference can be represented using a varying set of colors ranging from cool (e.g., low interference) to hot (e.g., high interference).” In other words, different colors are used to represent different levels of interference, so threshold values must be used for the color determination. For example, a first measured interference value is compared to a first threshold, if the measured interference value is below the first threshold, then low interference is determined, and a cool color will be used to represent the level of interference.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 6, last paragraph)
“The Office Action points to Figure 3D and column 15, lines 4-15, for signal interference occurring in a patio area. That passage depicts measured signal interference rendered on a layout; it does not disclose determining the presence of an electromagnetic interference source in response to a scan value meeting a predetermined scan value threshold, as recited.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cited teaching [Fig.3D], which discloses a layout or a map that indicates area having interference. Fig.3C also discloses a map that indicates different levels of interference in a home by using different colors. In order to assign a color for the interference, a threshold value must be used to determine a color to be assigned for the interference, see above in a).
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
