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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barmettler et al (US 20170303138 A1; hereinafter Barmettler).
Regarding claim 1, Barmettler discloses a wireless communication system (see Barmettler, fig. 6, [0056] FIG. 6 is a block diagram of an example communication network 49 implementing the master controller 28 in the environment 10. The master controller 28 may connect and communicate wirelessly, e.g., via the access point to client network configurations 99A and 99B, with each wireless instrument 26 after each wireless instrument 26 is placed in the area 24. It will be appreciated, however, that other (e.g., non-structured) network configurations may be used, including, for example, an ad hoc network configuration. The processor 40 of the master controller 28 may be configured to analyze information received from the wireless instruments 26, and to send information to the wireless instruments 26, as described herein.) comprising
a plurality of base station devices (see Barmettler 22B, 22A fig. 6) configured to communicate with a plurality of terminal devices (see Barmettler, fig. 6, 26), and
a control apparatus (see Barmettler, fig. 6 28), wherein the control apparatus includes:
a processor (see Barmettler, fig. 3); and
a memory storing program instructions that cause the processor to (see Barmettler, fig. 3):
calculate a plurality of placement patterns in which the plurality of base station devices is placed in a target area, and calculate, for each of the plurality of placement patterns, an evaluation index value based on a communication request of each of the plurality of terminal devices (see Barmettler, fig. 13, [0102] FIG. 13 is a screenshot of an example heat map report 800 based at least in part on an analysis of interference, congestion, and signal attenuation information received from the wireless instruments 26 and master controller 28 for a network having a plurality of access points, such as access points 22A and 22B, each of which is situated at one of two floors 801A, 801B of a two story building. An ideal location for each of the access points 22A, 22B may be determined where the RSSI balances between each link. If placement of either of the access points 22A or 22B should be adjusted, the heat map may indicate a general direction in which the access point should be moved. For example, in FIG. 13, the heat map report for the first floor 8010A indicates that the access point 22A should be moved in a general direction 802A to improve the wireless network quality of service, particularly of the wireless instruments 26 in the master bedroom and the office (which wireless instruments 26 may, for example, be simulating a wireless enabled television and a wireless laptop that is placed in the master bedroom and the office, respectively). Similarly, a heat map report for the second floor 801B may indicate that the access point 22B should be moved in a general direction as indicated by the arrow 802B to improve the wireless network quality of service for the wireless devices 26 accessing the network through the access point 22B. The technician may provide name and location information when configuring the wireless instruments 26, e.g., master bedroom on first floor, bedroom 2 on second floor, et cetera, to improve the readability of the reports. For each location, interference and congestion may be determined for different signal types, e.g., web browsing, voice, video streaming, high definition (HD) video streaming, Wi-Fi channels, et cetera. The wireless instruments 26 may be able to simulate the capability of different Wi-Fi enabled devices and/or simulate traffic data patterns used by different applications such as streaming video, streaming audio, and/or web surfing services, etc.),
select a placement pattern having a best evaluation index value (see Barmettler, ¶[0080, 81]), and
perform placement control of the plurality of base station devices based on the selected placement pattern (see Barmettler, ¶[0080, 81] and fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations have been addressed in the cited portions of the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations have been addressed in the cited portions of the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Barmettler discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions cause the processor to use, as the evaluation index value, at least one of a communication request achievement rate, a degree of satisfaction to a user of each of the plurality of terminal devices, or quality of experience (QoE) of the user of each of the plurality of terminal devices the terminal device (see Barmettler, fig. 13, ¶[0080-81]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations have been addressed in the cited portions of the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barmettler in view of Tomoki et al (JP 2019-033435 A; hereinafter “Tomoki”: This prior art is from Applicant’s IDS, therefore a copy is not provided with this action).
Regarding claim 2, Barmettler discloses the wireless communication system according to claim 1, wherein in the calculation of each of the plurality of placement patterns, the program instructions cause the processor to perform clustering on the plurality of terminal devices, divide the plurality of terminal devices into a plurality of clusters, and place a corresponding base station device among the plurality of base station devices (see Barmettler, fig. 13)
Barmettler fails to specifically disclose at a position of a center of gravity of each cluster.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomoki discloses placing moveable base stations at a position of a center of gravity of each cluster (see Tomoki, page 6 claim 5).
Given that Barmettler and Tomoki each discuss determining placement of a base station to improve quality of service, it would have obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barmettler by moving base stations to center of clusters to find the smallest distances to each wireless terminal thereby minimizing path loss (see Tomoki, ¶[0007])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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.
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights