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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “he” in line 12, 14, and 14, respectively, which should be “the”.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “satisfies” in line 9, 11, and 11, respectively, which should be “satisfy” for agreement with the noun, similar to that used in following limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation "data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation "each zone" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite what “zone” of “zones” this limitation is referring to.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 is taken as the representative clam. Claim 2 recites detecting that a second device is not connected toa wireless network, detecting a wireless network problem, detecting one or more wireless signal strength measurements, and determining whether the signal strength measurements satisfy a threshold. The limitations of detecting and determining can be performed within the human mind. That is, a human can look at equipment or data and detect a device is not connected, a network problem, and signal strength measurements. A human can also determine whether a signal strength measurement satisfies a threshold. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a first device is a generic computer component upon which the abstract idea is intended to be implemented on and the additional elements of sending an instruction is extra-solution activity of transmitting a signal, which the courts have determined is old and well-known. Therefore, neither of these additional elements provide a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements consist of a generic computer component used as a tool and extra-solution activity, which do not amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 2 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above. These claims add mental processing steps, i.e.., determining or generating, or add details for the generic computer components that do not change the use of the components beyond a tool being used by the mental process. Therefore, the dependent claims do not add a practical application or significantly more.
Similar to claims 2-8, claims 9-15 and 16-21 are directed to a mental process without a practical application or significantly more. These claims merely implement the abstract idea on a generic system or storage media, which does not amount to a practical application or significantly more.
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) 2, 3, 6-10, 13-17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,363,690 to Singh et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0111102 to Fan et al.
As per claim 2, Singh discloses a method comprising (Singh; At least column 2 line(s) 9):
Singh does not explicitly disclose detecting, by a first device at a property, that a second device is not connected to a wireless network at the property;
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fan (Fan; At least paragraph(s) 43). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fan into the invention of Singh with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Detecting poor device connectivity allows identification of weak or lost signals that would decrease or eliminate the benefit of the wireless network, as discussed in at least the background sections of Fan and Singh.
detecting, by the first device and using data from one or more first sensors in the first device, a wireless network problem for one or more other devices and the wireless network at the property (Singh; At least column 6 line(s) 32-35 and column 7 line(s) 13-14);
detecting, by the first device and using one or more second sensors in the first device, one or more wireless signal strength measurements at the property (Singh; At least column 6 line(s) 66-column 7 line(s) 5);
determining whether the one or more wireless signal strength measurements satisfies a signal strength threshold (Singh; At least column 6 line(s) 66-column 7 line(s) 5 and column 10 line(s) 29-30); and
in response to determining that the one or more wireless signal strength measurements satisfy [t]he signal strength threshold, sending, to an access point for the property, an instruction to cause the access point to activate a network band (Singh; At least column 5 line(s) 25-29, column 6 line(s) 32-34, and column 7 line(s) 35-36; if the issue occurs at a particular band measured, then the bandwidth may be changed, i.e., activating or deactivating network bands).
As per claim 3, Singh discloses determining, for a wireless transmitter, whether an activity level of the wireless transmitter satisfies an activity threshold (Singh; At least column 5 line(s) 22-24 and column 6 line(s) 34-35), wherein:
sending the instruction to cause the access point to activate the network band is responsive to determining that the activity level of the wireless transmitter satisfies the activity threshold (Singh; At least column 6 line(s) 66-column 7 line(s) 5).
As per claim 6, Singh discloses wherein the access point comprises a wireless router (Singh; At least column 5 line(s) 21-29).
As per claim 7, Singh does not explicitly disclose wherein the second device comprises a wireless camera.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fan (Fan; At least paragraph(s) 99). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fan into the invention of Singh with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Cameras are well-known devices that can be connected to networks or can be on devices connected to networks. Therefore, it would be obvious to one in the art that the second device can comprise a camera.
As per claim 8, Singh discloses wherein the first device comprises a robot (Singh; At least column 3 line(s) 40).
As per claims 9, 10, and 13-15 (system) and 16, 17, 20, and 21, Singh discloses a system and storage media (Singh; At least column 12 line(s) 23-33). Therefore, claims 9, 10, and 13-15 and 16, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Xue as applied to claim 2, 9, and 16, respectively, and in further view of U.S. Patent 7,823,199 to Rathi et al.
As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Singh does not explicitly disclose determining whether an amount of data transmitted by a third device satisfies a second threshold; and in response to determining that the amount of data transmitted by the third device satisfies the second threshold, determining that there is likely a network hack, wherein sending the instruction is responsive to determining that there is likely a network hack.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Rathi (Rathi; At least column 2, line(s) 4-5, column 4 line(s) 64-65, and column 7 line(s) 34-45). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Rathi into the invention of Singh with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Ensuring network security is a major concern, as discussed in at least column 1 line(s) 26-40, therefore, it would be obvious to one in the art to detect network hacks and other large data clients that could be overwhelming or unbalancing the network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Fan as applied to claim 2, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0086683 to Priest et al.
As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Singh discloses gathering network information in order to find problem spots (Singh; At least column 4, line(s) 56-65), but does not explicitly disclose generating, using data that indicates the wireless network problem for the one or more other devices and the one or more wireless signal strength measurements, a heat map that indicates, for each zone at the property, a corresponding wireless network performance for the zone, wherein sending the instruction to cause the access point to activate the network band uses the heat map.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Priest (Priest; At least paragraph(s) 180 and 181). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Priest into the invention of Singh with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Generating a map to indicate network problems would allow a more comprehensive view of the network to better identify problem areas, overlapping of signals, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665