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
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant asserts that the rejections have been overcome by amendment but does not explain how. The rejections were made because each of the original independent claims contained “contingent limitations which are phrased in a way that makes it impossible to determine what the claim actually requires,” pointing specifically to contingent limitations introduced by the word “when” (see pp. 8-10, Non-Final Office Action, 17 October 2025). The amendment changes all instances of “when” in the independent claims to “in response to.” On review, it is clear that the effect of the amendment is to remove the contingency from the claims, thereby rendering the rejections moot. The new language (that is, “in response to”) is understood as attaching to limitations that are now required by the claims and which must occur. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claimed steps cannot be performed “‘in the human mind’ as they are all specifically tied to concrete technologies” and “the processing performed is explicitly performed by a computing device.” However, it is not clear how the claims are “tied” to technology in a way that precludes them from being directed to a mental process. The claims gather data, think about it, and either “adjust” or “determine” a “scheme.” The mere fact that the data has to do with “concrete technologies” or that the claims invoke a “processor” as a tool is not enough to confer eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Applicant next argues that “The claims describe numerous computing processor actions that require non-mental processes.” However, Applicant does not explain why the claimed processes are “non-mental.” Aside from the instructions to “apply it” using a computer, the abstract idea as claimed does not seem include any actions which are impractical to perform in the mind. For example, besides any generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human obtaining a printout of access point group bandwidth configurations and topologies, thinking about similarities between the groups, determining adjustments to make to the configurations, and writing down those adjustments as a “scheme” written on paper (as in the case of claims 1 and 10), or merely thinking a determination of a “scheme” (as in the case of claim 8). Note that while the claims mention technological elements such as access points arranged in a physical topology, the elements are not positively recited as limitations within the claim but rather appear only as part of a description of the information on which the abstract idea operates. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
In light of the above, Applicant’s arguments cannot be held as persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more.
First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claims 1, 8, and 10 is directed to the abstract idea of thinking about and adjusting configuration “schemes”.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, and using the language of claim 1 as representative, the idea is recited in the following limitations:
“determining…bandwidth configuration schemes of a plurality of access point (AP) groups, wherein each AP group comprises a plurality of APs, the bandwidth configuration scheme of each AP group comprises a bandwidth of each AP in the plurality of APs in each AP group”;
“in response to determining that a similarity between a first physical topology corresponding to a first AP group and a second physical topology corresponding to a second AP group is greater than a similarity threshold, and a bandwidth of a first AP in the first AP group is greater than a bandwidth of a second AP corresponding to the first AP in the second physical topology, adjusting the bandwidth of the second AP in a bandwidth configuration scheme of the second AP group to the bandwidth of the first AP”; and
“in response to determining that the similarity between the first physical topology and the second physical topology is greater than the similarity threshold, and the bandwidth of the first AP is less than the bandwidth of the second AP, adjusting the bandwidth of the first AP in a bandwidth configuration scheme of the first AP group to the bandwidth of the second AP”,
“wherein the plurality of AP groups comprise the first AP group and the second AP group, the first physical topology comprises physical location information of a plurality of APs in the first AP group, and the second physical topology comprises physical location information of a plurality of APs in the second AP group.”
With respect to claim 8, the idea is recited in the following limitations:
“in response to determining that a similarity between a first physical topology corresponding to the first AP group and a second physical topology corresponding to a second AP group is greater than a similarity threshold, determining the bandwidth configuration scheme of the first AP group as a bandwidth configuration scheme of the second AP group,”
“wherein the first AP group and the second AP group each comprise a plurality of APs, the first physical topology comprises physical location information of the plurality of APs in the first AP group, and the second physical topology comprises physical location information of the plurality of APs in the second AP group.”
The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind or with a pen and paper. For example, besides any generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human obtaining a printout of access point group bandwidth configurations and topologies, thinking about similarities between the groups, determining adjustments to make to the configurations, and writing down those adjustments as a “scheme” written on paper (as in the case of claims 1 and 10), or merely thinking a determination of a “scheme” (as in the case of claim 8). Note that while the claims mention technological elements such as access points arranged in a physical topology, the elements are not positively recited as limitations within the claim but rather appear only as part of a description of the information on which the abstract idea operates. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of the independent claims. In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim at most recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
in claims 1 and 8, “by a processor,” which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components;
in claim 8, “obtaining a bandwidth configuration scheme of a first access point (AP) group,” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of gathering data; and
in claim 10, “a processor” and “a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform operations,” which amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
As noted above, while the claims mention technological elements such as access points arranged in a physical topology, the elements are not positively recited as limitations within the claim, but rather appear only as part of a description of the information on which the abstract idea operates. To the extent that the claims could be interpreted as positively reciting the access points, topologies, and the like, that would amount a mere field-of-use limitation or an invocation of generic computer components. Notably, the claims do not require any actual change to the functioning of the access points, but merely adjustments or determinations having to do with a “scheme” (a word which encompasses a mere idea).
In light of the above, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea that is implemented using computers as tools. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to 2B, each of the independent claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of obtaining configuration schemes, a processor, a memory, access points, etc., amount to mere instructions to apply the idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere field-of-use limitations. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons given above, each of independent claims 1, 8, and 10 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea and the information on which the abstract idea operates, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea.
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 Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445