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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/26/2024.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable David Famolari ( US 20100110921 A1) in view of Praveen Koratekere et al (US 20180035365 A1).
For Claim 1, Famolari discloses a method, implemented by at least one processor and at least one memory (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0008, that mobile devices may include digital systems to secure fast wireless transmissions of voice and/or data. Typical mobile devices include some or all of the following components: a transceiver; an antenna; a processor; one or more audio transducers), for automatically testing wireless connections, comprising:
receiving a first input from a user via a graphic user interface (GUI);
scanning, based on the first input, for available wireless networks to find a plurality of network identifications (IDs) (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0037, lines 1-5, that In the preferred embodiments, a Wi-Fi Client (WC) device needs to be able to scan for available Wi-Fi Access Points. Typically, this involves scanning the available frequency channels and listening for beacons transmitted by nearby Access Points (APs));
filtering the plurality of network IDs to generate a subset of network IDs meeting a predetermined criterion (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0065, that the APs already in the user's profile are grouped together in Group 1. Preferably, the APs that have open security policies (e.g., that do not require WEP or other information to be known before hand) but are not currently in the user's profile are also grouped together in Group 2);
providing, to the user, the subset of network IDs representing a list of access points via the GUI (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0069, that The method, system and device preferably collect information that is broadcast by nearby Wi-Fi hotspots. This information includes, e.g., the MAC address, the SSID, the operating mode, the transmission technology and the security status of all the Wi-Fi APs that have been detected by the device's underlying Wi-Fi capabilities);
receiving a second input from the user, wherein the second input indicates that the user selects a network ID from the subset of network IDs (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0150, that a user could be able to select one or more access point for evaluation and/or a test correspondent to be used in an evaluation by selecting from a list displayed to the user via, e.g., the user input IN as shown in FIG. 3);
receiving a third input from the user via the GUI; performing, based on the third input, a wireless connection test for a selected access point associated with the selected network ID to generate a connection test result (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0150, that By way of example, as shown in FIG. 6, a user could be presented with a display on the display screen D of a list of potential evaluation types to choose from in some illustrative cases).
Famolari also declares in ¶ 0053, that the device will also be able to operate in both an automated mode and a user-driven mode. Consequently, Examiner concludes that the “an evaluation process that comprises, e.g., collecting data, grouping APs, ranking APs within groups, determining an order of execution across groups, the determination of testing partners, the IP connectivity and end-to-end path performance evaluation”(see ¶ 0053) could all be carried out in a user-driven mode.
Famolari fails to expressly disclose receiving a first input from a user via a graphic user interface (GUI); and generating at least one label based on the connection test result; and providing, to the user, the at least one label via the GUI.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses receiving a first input from a user via a graphic user interface (GUI) (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0085, that the WiFi UI 506 may display a text box in which the user may enter user-specified criteria 510. In this example, the search option 508 is configured to search the available WiFi network list 414 according to the network name. Therefore, the text entered into the text box may be used to filter the available WiFi network list 414 according to network name); and generating at least one label based on the connection test result; and providing, to the user, the at least one label via the GUI (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0087, that The WiFi UI 506 displays the search result 518. In this case, the three WiFi networks 104 with the letter “a” in their network name are displayed. The other WiFi networks 104 in the available WiFi network list 414 that do not include the letter “a” are left out of the search result 518).
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 system taught in Famolari with the WiFi UI text box taught in Koratekere. The motivation is so that the text entered into the text box may be used to filter the available WiFi network list 414 according to network name.
For Claim 2, Famolari discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the predetermined criterion includes at least one of: the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs starting with a same predetermined prefix among the plurality of network IDs; the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs ending with a same predetermined suffix among the plurality of network IDs; and the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs containing a same predetermined word or phrase among the plurality of network IDs.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses the predetermined criterion includes at least one of: the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs starting with a same predetermined prefix among the plurality of network IDs (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0087, that The WiFi UI 506 displays the search result 518. In this case, the three WiFi networks 104 with the letter “a” in their network name are displayed {a_WiFi_network; ab_WiFi_network; & abc_WiFi_network}); the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs ending with a same predetermined suffix among the plurality of network IDs; and the subset of network IDs includes all network IDs containing a same predetermined word or phrase among the plurality of network IDs (Koratekere teaches, in FIG. 5, that The three WiFi networks 104 displayed are {a_WiFi_network; ab_WiFi_network; & abc_WiFi_network).
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 system taught in Famolari with the WiFi UI text box taught in Koratekere. The motivation is so that the text entered into the text box may be used to filter the available WiFi network list 414 according to network name.
For Claim 3, Famolari discloses a method, wherein performing the wireless connection test comprises: sending a ping test to a gateway address of the selected access point to generate a ping result, wherein the at least one label is generated based on the ping result (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0101, that One embodiment can include to use a ping message (e.g., ICMP ECHO) to ping each of the testing parties. The evaluation software can store the ping results (e.g., response times and number of successful responses, expressed as a percentage of attempts)).
Famolari fails to expressly disclose initiating, based on the third input, a wireless connection to a selected access point associated with the selected network ID.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses initiating, based on the third input, a wireless connection to a selected access point associated with the selected network ID (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0041, that Upon selecting the WiFi network 104, the wireless communication device 102 may attempt to establish a connection on the WiFi network 104).
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 system taught in Famolari with the connection establishment taught in Koratekere. The motivation is to enable the device/user to carry out data communication.
For Claim 4, Famolari discloses a method, wherein initiating the wireless connection to the selected access point comprises entering a password for the selected access point when needed (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0104, that A Walled Garden AP will redirect users to an authentication or log-on page in order for them to manually input security credentials and obtain access to the larger Internet).
For Claim 8, Famolari discloses a method, wherein: the first input is received based on a click on a first button in the GUI by the user; the second input is received based on a click on the selected network ID from the subset of network IDs by the user; and the third input is received based on a click on a second button in the GUI by the user (Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0150, that a user could be able to select one or more access point for evaluation and/or a test correspondent to be used in an evaluation by selecting from a list displayed to the user via, e.g., the user input IN as shown in FIG. 3. For example, a user could potentially manipulate a pointer device displayed on the display screen D to render a selection).
Famolari also declares in ¶ 0053, that the device will also be able to operate in both an automated mode and a user-driven mode. Consequently, Examiner concludes that the “an evaluation process that comprises, e.g., collecting data, grouping APs, ranking APs within groups, determining an order of execution across groups, the determination of testing partners, the IP connectivity and end-to-end path performance evaluation”(see ¶ 0053) could all be user-driven.
For Claim 9, Famolari discloses, in ¶ 0150, that a user could potentially manipulate a pointer device displayed on the display screen D to render a selection.
Famolari fails to expressly disclose a first button in the GUI and a second button in the GUI.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses a first button in the GUI and a second button in the GUI (Koratekere teaches, in FIG. 4, at least Search Option button, and ON/OFF slider button). Koratekere explains, in ¶ 0070, that the WiFi UI 306 includes a slider GUI element 322 that enables the user to turn WiFi communication on/off.
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 system taught in Famolari with the connection establishment taught in Koratekere. The motivation is to enable the device/user to carry out data communication.
For Claim 10, Famolari discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving a fourth input from the user via the GUI; and disconnecting, based on the fourth input, from the selected access point.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses receiving a fourth input from the user via the GUI; and disconnecting, based on the fourth input, from the selected access point (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0070, that the WiFi UI 306 includes a slider GUI element 322 that enables the user to turn WiFi communication on/off).
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 system taught in Famolari with the a slider GUI element taught in Koratekere. The motivation is so that the WiFi scanning and/or connection can be turned off to save power.
For Claim 11, Famolari discloses, in ¶ 0150, that a user could potentially manipulate a pointer device displayed on the display screen D to render a selection.
Famolari fails to expressly disclose that the third button is a disconnect button located below the second button and for disconnecting from a currently connected access point.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses that the third button is a disconnect button located below the second button and for disconnecting from a currently connected access point (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0070, that the WiFi UI 306 includes a slider GUI element 322 that enables the user to turn WiFi communication on/off). In FIG. 3, the slider GUI element/pane is below the WiFi Networks GUI element/pane.
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 system taught in Famolari with the a slider GUI element taught in Koratekere. The motivation is so that the WiFi scanning and/or connection can be turned off to save power.
For Claim 12, Famolari discloses, in ¶ 0097, that the mobile device will have a module that analyses application-layer performance (such, as, e.g., packet loss, delay, etc.) can either a) automatically initiate evaluation or b) present the user with a message to enable the user to select to start such an evaluation.
Famolari fails to expressly disclose periodically to update the list of access points.
However, Koratekere, in the analogous art, discloses periodically to update the list of access points (Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0044, that the available WiFi network list 114 displayed in the WiFi UI 106 can be quite long. Also, the available WiFi network list 114 is periodically updated, and the positions of the various WiFi networks 104 in the available WiFi network list 114 can change due to changing signal strength, WiFi networks 104 being added or removed, etc.).
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 system taught in Famolari with the a slider GUI element taught in Koratekere. The motivation is so that the WiFi scanning and/or connection can be turned on.
For Claim 14, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, above.
For Claims 15-17, please refer to the rejection of claims 2-4, above.
Claims 5-6, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Famolari ( US 20100110921 A1) in view of Praveen Koratekere et al (US 20180035365 A1) as applied to claim 1 or 14 above, and further in view of Xin-jun Luo et al (CN 101938764 A).
For Claims 5, 18, Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0101, that One embodiment can include to use a ping message (e.g., ICMP ECHO) to ping each of the testing parties. The evaluation software can store the ping results (e.g., response times and number of successful responses, expressed as a percentage of attempts). Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0073, that the WiFi UI 306 may indicate the WiFi network 104 to which the wireless communication device 102 is currently connected. In this example, the wireless communication device 102 is currently connected to the “XYZ_WiFi_Network.” The WiFi UI 306 displays “Connected” in the WiFi UI 306 for the “XYZ_WiFi_Network” to indicate this network's connected status [i.e., connected].
Famolari & Koratekere fail disclose a first label showing an Internet Protocol (IP) address with respect to the selected access point.
However, Luo, in the analogous art, discloses a first label showing an Internet Protocol (IP) address with respect to the selected access point (Luo teaches, in ¶ 0029, that monitoring terminal according to IP address of the PING testing task to the local WLAN access point initiating PING testing and recording the result (success or failure) PING local WLAN access point in time delay).
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 system taught in Famolari & Koratekere with the networking monitoring taught in Luo. The motivation is to optimize the network quality, which directly affects the data communication speed.
For Claim 6, Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0101, that One embodiment can include to use a ping message (e.g., ICMP ECHO) to ping each of the testing parties. The evaluation software can store the ping results (e.g., response times and number of successful responses [i.e., pass], expressed as a percentage of attempts). Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0081, that the search option 408 may be a GUI element (e.g., button), which when selected, may provide additional GUI elements in which a user may enter the user-specified criteria 110. For example, when the search option 408 is selected a text box may be displayed in which a text string may be entered. Koratekere also depicts a plurality of panes in FIG. 4. With respect to the connected network pane, some panes are above, while others are below.
Famolari & Koratekere fail disclose an indication indicating whether the ping result is a pass or fail.
However, Luo, in the analogous art, discloses an indication indicating whether the ping result is a pass or fail (Luo teaches, in ¶ 0029, that monitoring terminal according to IP address of the PING testing task to the local WLAN access point initiating PING testing and recording the result (success or failure) PING local WLAN access point in time delay).
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 system taught in Famolari & Koratekere with the networking monitoring taught in Luo. The motivation is to optimize the network quality, which directly affects the data communication speed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Famolari ( US 20100110921 A1) in view of Praveen Koratekere et al (US 20180035365 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao Zhao (CN 101834854 A).
For Claim 7, Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0037, that the wireless communication device 102 may include a WiFi network scanner 112 that may perform the WiFi network scan. The WiFi network scanner 112 may periodically scan the WiFi radio spectrum (e.g., WiFi bands and channels) to determine which WiFi networks 104 are in range.
Famolari & Koratekere fail disclose a drop-down list of wireless network adapters.
However, Zhao, in the analogous art, discloses a drop-down list of wireless network adapters (Zhao teaches, in ¶ 0029, start - >-> connect - > Wi-Fi- > network adapter - > internet selected from the pull-down list of default setting, selecting Wireless Adapter set IP address). Cheng also teaches, in ¶ 0015, setting wireless lan IP address and default gateway is set to be 192. 168.0. 1.
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 system taught in Famolari & Koratekere with the pull-down list taught in Zhao. The motivation is to facilitate user selection.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Famolari ( US 20100110921 A1) in view of Praveen Koratekere et al (US 20180035365 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiang-ming Cheng (CN 113660689 A).
For Claim 13, Famolari teaches, in ¶ 0094, that the association between testing party and AP in this embodiment can be based on, e.g., the AP's MAC address, SSID, Network Name or other parameters that are broadcast or inferred from the AP.
Koratekere teaches, in ¶ 0036, that A WAP may broadcast the SSID of its WiFi network 104. A wireless communication device 102 that is in range of the WAP may receive the broadcast SSID and identify the WiFi network 104.
Famolari & Koratekere fail disclose a Wi-Fi extender device that is capable of extending Wi-Fi coverage and connecting to different Wi-Fi devices of a home security system.
However, Cheng, in the analogous art, discloses a Wi-Fi extender device that is capable of extending Wi-Fi coverage and connecting to different Wi-Fi devices of a home security system (Cheng teaches, in (9), associating the wireless repeater with the AP, setting the SSID of the wireless repeater as SSID1, and associating the wireless client with the wireless repeater).
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 system taught in Famolari & Koratekere with the wireless repeater taught in Cheng. The motivation is to improve the wireless coverage ability of the network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SAHA (US 20150341211 A1) teaches that a method optimizing the performance of access points, wherein a device analyzer may calculate access point performance across many different regions and divisions and display a summary of the access point performance at the different levels to swiftly provide an easy visual identification of the underperforming access points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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 JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights