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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “…at least one of: at least one of the one or more network extenders; or the network gateway;” is unclear because it employs a nested “at least one of” construction. It is unclear whether the claim requires (i) one or more network extenders, (ii) the network gateway, or (iii) a combination of the network gateway and one or more network extenders. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed “A computer program product” doesn’t recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and therefore encompasses transitory signals, which are non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” storing the program instructions.
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) 1-4, 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani (US 20220212793) in view of Chari et al. (US 2019/0373675).
Regarding claim 1, Rezvani teaches a computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising: configuring, via a network gateway, a wireless network (Paragraph [0036] describes wireless router 120 as the source device that produces the wireless network 150 . The router’s role in generating and configuring the network is foundational to the entire system described);
communicatively connecting, via the wireless network, one or more network extenders to the network gateway (Paragraphs [0037]-[0041]; [0045] network extenders covers any device that extends network coverage, including wireless repeaters. The wireless repeaters 125a, 125b, 125c are communicatively connected via the wireless network 150 to the wireless router/gateway 120. The repeaters are operative components of the wireless network they receive and rebroadcast the network signal );
communicatively connecting, via the wireless network, one or more client devices to an access point comprising at least one of: at least one of the one or more network extenders; or the network gateway (Paragraphs [0038]; [0041]; [0047] describes multiple client devices (user device 103, cameras 108a-108e, sensors) communicatively connected to the wireless network 150 produced by gateway/router 120 and extended by repeaters 125a-125c. the drone actively evaluates “number and type of devices are already communicatively connected to the network via an access point. The act of removing a device from the network, requires it to have been connected in the first place);
performing one or more network test operations on the wireless network (Paragraphs [0041]; [0084] “network test operations’ covers any operation that tests any aspect of the network. The paragraphs describes multiple tests, upload/download speed tests, bandwidth consumption evaluation, and packet retry evaluation);
Rezvani doesn’t teach determining, during each of the one or more network test operations and for each of the one or more client devices, a connectivity throughput of the communicative connection between each client device and the wireless network; and causing control of one or more of the one or more client devices, the one or more network extenders, or the network gateway based on the determined connectivity throughput between each client device and the wireless network.
In analogous art Chari teaches determining, during each of the one or more network test operations and for each of the one or more client devices, a connectivity throughput of the communicative connection between each client device and the wireless network (Paragraphs [0048]; [0051]; [0166]; [0180] describes measured throughput on uplink and downlink for each multimedia device 110 (client device) connection to extender device 180 or AP 130, discloses determining a throughput estimate for each candidate AP connection. These measurements to end-to-end throughput tests running from/to analytics server 160 and the metrics are collected per multimedia device connection (185a, 185b, 185c each corresponding to a different multimedia device));
and causing control of one or more of the one or more client devices, the one or more network extenders, or the network gateway based on the determined connectivity throughput between each client device and the wireless network (Paragraphs [0073]-[0074]; [0168]; [0172]; [0182] shows a multimedia device (client switching) which AP it associates with a direct control action on the client device triggered by throughput estimates. Shows pausing multimedia playback on the client device based on poor metrics. The system pausing multimedia playback on the client device based on poor metrics. The system causing physical repositioning).
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 method of Rezvani to incorporate the teachings of Chari determining a connectivity throughput to improve the customer's multimedia service experience.
Regarding claim 2, Rezvani in view of Chari, Chari teaches wherein causing control of one or more of the one or more client devices, the one or more network extenders, or the network gateway comprises reconfiguring, based on the connectivity throughput of the communicative connection between the client device and the wireless network during each of the one or more network test operations, one or more of the network gateway or at least one of the one or more network extenders (Paragraphs [0166]; [0172]-[0173]; [0177]-[0178]; [0182]; [0183] describes AP selection method discloses a scanning/test process that evaluates throughput estimates for each AP. Based on those throughput determinations, the system reconfigures the network by switching association from one AP/extender to another ).
Regarding claim 3, Rezvani in view of Chari, Chari teaches further comprising determining, for each of the one or more client devices and prior to performing the one or more network test operations, a baseline connectivity throughput of the communicative connection between the client device and the wireless network (Paragraphs [0177]-[0183] describes (1) determine current AP throughput estimate at step 1210 (baseline), (2) scan and test candidate Aps at step 1240 (test operations) ).
Regarding claim 4, Rezvani in view of Chari, Chari teaches further comprising, for a subset of the one or more network test operations, determining a connection latency of the communicative connection between the client device and the wireless network (Paragraphs [0040]; [0048]; [0053]-[0054]; [0059]-[0060]; [0166]; [0178] describes end-to-end throughput tests running to/from analytics server inherently measure round-trip delay as part of the test procedure. Latency is among the end-to-end performance measured during throughput test operations. Latency is also determined “for a subset of the one or more network test operations” since latency is measured during the subset of tests that include end-to-end performance evaluation ).
Regarding claim 12, Rezvani in view of Chari, Chari teaches, wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: communicatively connecting, by the wireless network, a first network extender to the network gateway (Paragraphs [0031]; [0107] describes extender device 180 wirelessly associating with AP 130 (the network gateway via wireless connection 185d));
communicatively connecting, by the wireless network, a second network extender to the first network extender (Paragraphs [0040]; [0166]; [0178] describes a network topology with multiple extender devices and multimedia devices (110a, 110b, 110c connected through extender device 180, which itself connects to AP 130) );
communicatively connecting, by the wireless network, a first client device to the first network extender and a second client device to the second network extender (Paragraphs [0110]; [0150] describes multiple multimedia devices wirelessly associating with extender device 180 (the first extender), while other devices connect through different paths in the network topology);
and determining a connection throughput of the communicative connection between the first client device and the wireless network, and further determining a connection throughput of the communicative connection between the second client device and the wireless network (Paragraphs [0040]; [0166]; [0180] describes measuring uplink and downlink throughput for each multimedia device connected through the network topology. This encompasses determining throughput for multiple client devices (multimedia devices 110a, 110b, 110c ) connected through respective extender devices in the network).
Regarding claim 13, Rezvani in view of Chari, Chari teaches, wherein: performing the one or more network test operations comprises designating a specific client device in the one or more client devices as a priority client (Paragraphs [0031]; [0040]; [0166]; [0170] describes the extender device is directed toward improving performance of particular multimedia devices associated with a user’s account distinguishing them from other devices. When multiple multimedia devices are connected, the system focuses connection quality monitoring on the device with the weakest connection, effectively designating that specific device as the priority device for measurement and remediation purposes);
and determining the connectivity throughput of the communicative connection between each client device and the wireless network comprises determining a latency of the communicative connection (Paragraphs [0040]; [0065]; [0180] describes latency as one of the end-to-end performance characteristics measured and evaluated in the system . measuring end-to-end wireless packet success rate by sending ping or ARP packets and counting responses ).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 respectively.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 respectively.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 respectively.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani in view of Chari in further view of Rehman (Benchmarking in Wireless Networks/ 28 Oct 2011).
Regarding claim 5, Rezvani in view of Chari don’t teach further comprising: mapping, for a subset of the one or more network test operations and prior to performing each of the subset of the one or more network test operations, a pre-test network topology of the wireless network; and mapping, for the subset of the one or more network test operations and after performing each of the subset of the one or more network test operations, a post-test network topology of the wireless network.
However, in analogous art Rehman teaches further comprising: mapping, for a subset of the one or more network test operations and prior to performing each of the subset of the one or more network test operations, a pre-test network topology of the wireless network (Page 6 Paragraph 6-9, Page 11, Page 7-8, Paragraph 1 describes mapping a pre-test network topology encompasses any act of determining, recording, or documenting the arrangement of network devices prior to test operations and requires documenting network topology before benchmark tests are executed occurring in the deploy step which structurally precedes the measure step (test operations) in the benchmarking process);
and mapping, for the subset of the one or more network test operations and after performing each of the subset of the one or more network test operations, a post-test network topology of the wireless network (Page 13, Paragraph 8, Page 11, Page 12, section 6, Page 4 describes post-test topology mapping. The report is generated after test operations and analysis, and requires documenting topology (placement) as part of the post-test reporting. The post-run data collection at the end of each test run combined with the topology documentation requirements).
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 method of Rezvani and Chari to incorporate the teachings of Rehman documenting pre-test and post test network topology as mandatory steps in any accurate wireless performance evaluation.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani in view of Chari in further view of Zhao (WiFi Testing and Analysis Based on Interference Scenarios 04/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Rezvani in view of Chari don’t teach wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: configuring an additional wireless network that overlaps with the wireless network and uses a same channel as the wireless network; and generating, by the additional wireless network, interference that interferes with operation of the wireless network.
However, in analogous art Zhao teaches wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: configuring an additional wireless network that overlaps with the wireless network and uses a same channel as the wireless network; and generating, by the additional wireless network, interference that interferes with operation of the wireless network (Page 3, Page 5 describes the interference AP and interference STA actively transmit on channel 40, generating co-channel interference toward the DUT’s primary wireless network. Table 3 shows the throughput decline caused by the interference ranging from 8.0% to 91.8% throughput reduction. These measured decline rates are direct, quantified evidence that the additional wireless network interferes with operation of the wireless network. The interference is deliberately generated as part of a structured test methodology ).
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 method of Rezvani and Chari to incorporate the teachings of Zhao documenting pre-test and post-test network topology as mandatory steps in any accurate wireless performance evaluation.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 respectively.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani in view of Chari in further view of Zhao and Ghanbarinejad (WO 2023/209618).
Regarding claim 7, Rezvani in view of Chari and Zhao don’t teach wherein generating the interference comprises generating interference on a channel that carries backhaul communications between the one or more network extenders and the network gateway.
However, in analogous art Ghanbarinejad teaches wherein generating the interference comprises generating interference on a channel that carries backhaul communications between the one or more network extenders and the network gateway (Paragraphs [0004]; [0041]; [0046]; [0082]; [0085]; [0089]-[0090]; [0093] describes generating interference in the context of the IAB backhaul system. The IAB-MT (which operates on the backhaul Uu link to the parent node/donor) is described as simulating interference by transmitting a reference signal ).
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 method of Rezvani, Chari and Zhao to incorporate the teachings of Ghanbarinejad generating interference in the context of the IAB backhaul system as a measurement tool to enable a larger goal giving the network advance notice of upcoming interference caused by NCRs in IAB systems so it can dynamically reconfigures beams, power levels, and NCR behavior before not after communications are disrupted.
Regarding claim 8, Rezvani in view of Chari, Zhao and Ghanbarinejad, Ghanbarinejad, teaches wherein generating the interference comprises generating interference on a channel that carries communications between the one or more client devices and the access point (Paragraphs [0046]; [0061]-[0062]; [0064]; [0070]; [0073]; [0075]; [0189] describes gNB repeater link (backhaul) and the “repeater-UE link” (access) as distinct channels NCRs maintain. The interference scenarios are specifically directed at the access-side channel, the one carrying communications between the client device and its serving access point).
Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani in view of Chari in further view of Vardarajan et al. (US 2017/0353245).
Regarding claim 9, Rezvani in view of Chari don’t teach wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: positioning at least one client device near a particular network extender of the one or more network extenders such that a difference between a received signal strength at the at least one client device from the particular network extender and a received signal strength at the at least one client device from the network gateway is less than a threshold amount; connecting the at least one client device to the wireless network; mapping a network topology of the wireless network; and determining which access point the at least one client device is connected to.
However, in analogous art Vardarajan teaches wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: positioning at least one client device near a particular network extender of the one or more network extenders such that a difference between a received signal strength at the at least one client device from the particular network extender and a received signal strength at the at least one client device from the network gateway is less than a threshold amount (Paragraphs [0076]; [0080] describes positioning a client device (smartphone 704) in a zone where it receives signal from both the gateway (wireless access point 708) and the extender (wireless range extender 712), with signal strength thresholds governing the acceptable range. A signal strength overlap zone bounded by low and high threshold values (25%-75%), which is the contested zone where both access points are competing for the client’s association. Fig.7E and Fig. 7D illustrate this exact arrangement );
connecting the at least one client device to the wireless network; mapping a network topology of the wireless network (Paragraphs [0016]; [0076] describes connecting client devices (smartphone 704, laptop 110, tablet 108) to the wireless network though either the gateway or the range extender);
and determining which access point the at least one client device is connected to (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]; [0071] describes assembling a complete list of detected networks (networks 338/340) by scanning for all access points via probe requests/responses and beacon messages on multiple frequency bands. The system further groups networks by their originating access device (Fig. 4c), reveling the relational structure of the network. “mapping a network topology” encompass any process of discovering and organizing the structural relationships among network nodes ).
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 method of Rezvani and Chari to incorporate the teachings of Vardarajan placement of wireless range extender to improve the ease and accuracy of placing and configuring in wireless range extender within a home or office network by automatically evaluating signal strength, identifying related dual-band networks, and providing real-time placement guidance to non-technical users.
Regarding claim 10, Rezvani in view of Chari and Vardarajan, Vardarajan teaches, wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: connecting a specific client device to the wireless network (Paragraphs [0016]; [0076] describes connecting specific client devices including smartphone 704, laptop 110, and tablet 108 to the wireless network through gateway or extender associations);
transmitting network pings, from the specific client device, to a network device upstream of the wireless network at specified intervals while moving the specific client device through space around a periphery of a physical area covered by the wireless network (Paragraphs [0010]; [0021]-[0022]; [0074]-[0075] describes monitoring wireless association over time, and its quality metrics include packet drop rate, average throughput, and wireless signal travel time, which are measured by transmitting data packets (pings) toward an upstream network device and measuring whether they arrive );
detecting, while moving the specific client device through space, that the specific client device has reconnected to a new access point (Paragraphs [0077]; [0079]; [0089] describes inherently detects when a client device transitions its association from one access point to another. Figs. 7B-7E shows the client (smartphone 704) in various positions relative to both the gateway (708) and the extender (712), and the system determines at each position which access point association is active. The transition between these states moving from gateway association as the device traverses the coverage area);
and determining a number of network pings that fail to reach the network device upstream of the wireless network when the specific client device reconnects to the new access point (Paragraphs [0019]; [0021]-[0022] describes packet drop rate as one of the quality metrics used to evaluate wireless association performance. A packet drop rate is, by definition, calculated by counting the number of transmitted packets that fail to reach their destination, which is what counting failed pings measures ).
Regarding claim 11, Rezvani in view of Chari and Vardarajan, Vardarajan teaches, wherein performing the one or more network test operations comprises: distributing the one or more client devices around a periphery of a physical area covered by the wireless network (Paragraphs [0074]-[0075] describes where smartphone 604 is shown at five distinct positions (612, 616, 620, 624, 628) radiating outward from access point 608 with position 628 sitting precisely at the coverage periphery where signal drops to zero. The concentric ring gradations shows in Fig. 6 (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) visually map the coverage area boundary, and the client devices are positioned at these boundary zones);
and determining, at each client device, a received signal strength of the wireless network (Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]; [0074]; [0089] discloses determining received signal strength at client devices positioned throughout the coverage area. RSSI measurement with specific dbm thresholds (−50 dbm, −75 dbm), which is a received signal strength of the wireless network. The smartphone 604 determines signal strength at each of the five distinct positions (612, 616, 620, 624, 628) and displays the result as a signal meter reading).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights