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
1. Claims 8, 10, 18 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is ambiguity as to what the claims mean, therefore all abbreviations, symbols, acronyms, functional designations, letter combinations, code names, nicknames, project names, alphabetical contractions and general slang must be positively defined and identified in the claims.
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 9 generally recite “AFC”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claims 8 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.
3. Claims 8 and 18 recites the limitation "AFC" in line 1 of claim 8 and line 5 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2023/0413189) in view of Strater et al (2025/0317736).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20. Wang teaches a program, an AP comprising a processor, memory (0021-0022, 0151-0152), a method comprising:
collecting, by an access point (AP), a first number of location samples of the AP from a positioning system (0034 – Access Point provides location information to AFC system, which then consults regulatory database to determine a frequency channel, or channels, and power limit for operation of the access point, 0047 – AP determines their location in two or three dimensions and must communicate with the AFC system periodically to request a list of available channels, 0051-0052 – AP sends the access point location, antenna height, FCC ID, device serial number, etc., to an AFC system and the AFC returns a list of one or more channels and output powers, from which the AP can choose to operate. The AP must check in with the AFC system periodically to update the channel list);
sending, by the AP and to a server for frequency coordination, the location (0034 – Access Point provides location information to AFC system, which then consults regulatory database to determine a frequency channel, or channels, and power limit for operation of the access point, 0047 – AP determines their location in two or three dimensions and must communicate with the AFC system periodically to request a list of available channels, 0051-0052 – AP sends the access point location, antenna height, FCC ID, device serial number, etc., to an AFC system and the AFC returns a list of one or more channels and output powers, from which the AP can choose to operate. The AP must check in with the AFC system periodically to update the channel list);
in response to a determination that a location of the AP is unchanged(0034 – Access Point provides location information to AFC system, which then consults regulatory database to determine a frequency channel, or channels, and power limit for operation of the access point, 0047 – AP determines their location in two or three dimensions and must communicate with the AFC system periodically to request a list of available channels, 0051-0052 – AP sends the access point location, antenna height, FCC ID, device serial number, etc., to an AFC system and the AFC returns a list of one or more channels and output powers, from which the AP can choose to operate. The AP must check in with the AFC system periodically to update the channel list); and
Wang does not teach determining a location range of the AP based on the first number of the location samples and in response to a determination that the location of the AP is changed based on the location range and the previous location range of the AP, collecting, by the AP, a second number of location samples of the AP from the positioning system, and updating, by the AP, the location range of the AP based on the second number of location samples.
Strater teaches the AP determines a baseline location and one or more baseline location integrity parameters which are then used to determine the change in location of the AP. The AP only sends or issues the periodic AFC request message when required due to the expiration of the periodic power allowance time period or the AP has changed location (abstract, 0005-0007, 0084-0085 – no need to update the AFC request if AP has not moved. However, if the AP has changed location, this new location of the AP must be used in the next AFC request message). The AFC request comprises a location and an uncertainty region within which the AP is located (0004, 0006, 0078, 0080, 0091). In an aspect of the present disclosure, the AP updates the one or more location integrity parameters with one or more current location integrity parameters, and stores the one or more base line integrity parameters (0008-0010). Strater teaches in response to a determination that the location of the AP is changed the AP collects a second number of location samples and updates the location range of the AP (0007-0010, 0015-0016, 0060-0062 – location integrity system for determining a change in location information of an AP can be part of the AP, 0068 – GPS information, 0076 – plurality of GPS parameters, 0077 – integrity system can be part of the AP, 0078-0081 – the baseline AP location can be determined, such as updated or changed, based on the current location of the AP, 0086 and 0094 – the AP baseline location, the one or more location integrity parameters, or both can be updated prior to issuing an AFC request message).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang to include an location, one or more location integrity parameters, error offset, and/or uncertainty region in the AFC request as taught by Strater in order to provide more accurate location information so as to enhance the Wi-Fi networks experience for users (Strater at 0002).
Regarding claims 2 and 12. Wang teaches wherein at least one of the following: the positioning system comprises a global positioning system (GPS); the location samples comprise GPS samples; or the server for frequency coordination comprises a federal communications commission (FCC) server (0002 – FCC server).
Strater teaches FCC server (0002).
Regarding claims 3 and 13. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein collecting, by the AP, the first number of location samples of the AP from the positioning system comprises: collecting, by the AP, a predetermined minimum number of GPS samples from the GPS as the first number of location samples.
Strater teaches the AP determines a baseline location and one or more baseline location integrity parameters which are then used to determine the change in location of the AP. The AP only sends or issues the periodic AFC request message when required due to the expiration of the periodic power allowance time period or the AP has changed location (abstract, 0005-0007, 0084-0085 – no need to update the AFC request if AP has not moved. However, if the AP has changed location, this new location of the AP must be used in the next AFC request message). The AFC request comprises a location and an uncertainty region within which the AP is located (0004, 0006, 0078, 0080, 0091). In an aspect of the present disclosure, the AP updates the one or more location integrity parameters with one or more current location integrity parameters, and stores the one or more base line integrity parameters (0008-0010). Strater teaches in response to a determination that the location of the AP is changed the AP collects a second number of location samples and updates the location range of the AP (0007-0010, 0015-0016, 0060-0062 – location integrity system for determining a change in location information of an AP can be part of the AP, 0068 – GPS information, 0076 – plurality of GPS parameters, 0077 – integrity system can be part of the AP, 0078-0081 – the baseline AP location can be determined, such as updated or changed, based on the current location of the AP, 0086 and 0094 – the AP baseline location, the one or more location integrity parameters, or both can be updated prior to issuing an AFC request message).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang to include an location (e.g., GPS samples), one or more location integrity parameters, error offset, and/or uncertainty region in the AFC request as taught by Strater in order to provide more accurate location information so as to enhance the Wi-Fi networks experience for users (Strater at 0002).
Regarding claims 5 and 15. Wang teaches sending, by the AP, the location range to a frequency coordination orchestrator (FCO) associated with the AP, wherein the FCO is an individual cloud service exterior to the AP or included in the AP (0002 – FCC, 0033 – regulatory database may be a National Regulatory Authority (NRA) database).
Strater teaches a government agency or regulatory group, such as by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (0002, 0051 – FCC ID is used as a lookup in a server database, 0080 – FFC identifier, 0085 – FCC ID).
Regarding claims 6 and 16. Wang teaches receiving, by the AP, the at least one available channel and power forwarded from the FCO, wherein the at least one available channel and power is received by the FCO from the FCC server (0002 – FCC, 0033 – regulatory database may be a National Regulatory Authority (NRA) database).
Strater teaches a government agency or regulatory group, such as by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (0002, 0051 – FCC ID is used as a lookup in a server database, 0080 – FFC identifier, 0085 – FCC ID).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. Wang does not teach wherein the AP determines whether the location of the AP is changed by: determining, by the AP, a current location of the AP based on the location range of the AP; determining, by the AP, a previous location of the AP based on the previous location range of the AP; determining, by the AP, a distance between the current location of the AP and the previous location of the AP; in response to a determination that the distance being smaller than a predetermined location threshold, determining, by the AP, the location of the AP is unchanged; and
in response to a determination that the distance being greater than the predetermined location threshold, determining, by the AP, the location of the AP is changed (0025 – particular distance, 0066 – based on location/distance and/or history interference, 0071 – compare the distance to a threshold).
Strater teaches detecting if AP has moved by comparing the one or more current location integrity parameters and one or more baseline parameters in conjunction with threshold value(s) (0083).
Regarding claims 10 and 19. Wang teaches wherein the AP configures a plurality of parameters comprising at least one of the following: a minimum number of location samples; a maximum number of location samples; retry times if the AP does not receive any AFC response; or a rate for collecting location samples (0047, 0052 – every 24 hours).
Strater teaches a rate for collecting location samples (0005 – time limitation, 0006-0010 – every time the AP moves or changes location, 0068 – timely not stale, 0081 – at the expiration of a power allowance time period).
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.
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.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Strater further in view of Colonna (2009/0253392).
Regarding claim 8. Wang in view of Strater do not teach in response to the AP failing to receive the AFC response, sending, by the AP to the server, the location range every time the AP collects a maximum number of location samples.
Colonna teaches using a constraint on the maximum number of measurement samples that can be used a location algorithm wherein only relevant measurements are used which provides for more accurate location measurements to be used (0088).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of Strater to only use a maximum number of measurements as taught by Colonna in order to reduce measurement errors, as well as, saving on processing time.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 9, 14 and 18 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.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2022/0141681) Flesch teaches the AP collects GPS samples and one or more RSSI values and sends the collected GPS samples to the AFC and the AFC configures the AP with channel and power (0005-0006).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights