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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-39 have been examined.
Preliminary amendment received on 12/03/24 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on US application No. 17/446210, filed on 8/27/21 which matured to USPN 12,101,316, which claims priority based on provisional US application No. 63/071,941 filed on 8/28/20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner reviewed IDS document(s) received on 12/20/24, carefully considering the art cited within the document(s).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 identifies two different elements (“Request” and Application Engine”) with the same numerical numbers.
Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is object it to because it describes the invention using various, different elements but numbers these elements with the same number (see “application engine 102”: para 56-560, 64, 68 and 76 and “request 102”: para 61-62, 64, 66-69, 63, 66-67, “the application engine 102”, as well as “the application engine 120” and “tablet 120” in para 76) resulting in potential confusion to a reader. Applicant should verify all the references of the terms/numbers used in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-29, 37-38 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:Specifically, claim 28-29 depend on claims 21 which suggest “responding to an authorization request associated with the user based upon a confidence metric…” and they recite “wherein responding to an authorization request based upon confidence metric comprises …” The way claims 28-29 are structured it appears that the “an authorization request” should read “the authorization request”. Similar issue is observed in claims 37-38 and 40.
Applicant should correct/clarify the intended meaning of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, 15-16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they either recite a concomitance of the claim features, or they are their obvious modifications.
Specifically, the instant claims are essentially the broader version of the patented claims: compare claims 1, with claim 21, for example.
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-23 25, 27-28, 30-32, 34, 36-37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Chickering (USPN 8966075) in view of Chiang (USPBU 20190104422).
As per claims 21, 30 and 39, Chickering teaches the concept of a computing system with network subsets generated based on obtained information identifying a plurality of devices, including one network (a master mesh) associated with the first subset of devices; and another network (an environment mesh) associated with the second subset of devices;
wherein individual devices included in a one subset of the devices execute an application which is configured to communicate with a controller and wherein individual devices included in another subset of the devices are responsive to wired or wireless communications with the controller and are associated with locations (policy server communicate with endpoint devices to select VLAN from among a plurality of VLAN to which to assign the endpoint device, e.g., col. 2 line 29- col. 3 line 3).
Chickering does not use the term “mesh” and there is no express teaching of responding to an authorization request associated with a user approximate to the controller and associated with the plurality of the devices.
However, in related art, Chiang suggests such solution (screen of device 150 provides controls to allow the user to select devices to add to the wireless mesh network, para 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to extend Chickering invention to include Chiang’s teaching given the predictable benefit of usability and customization.
As discussed above Chickering in view of Chiang teaches responding to an authorization request associated with the user and with the plurality of meshes.
The difference between Chickering/Chiang’s references is that there is no particular discussion of “a confidence metric”. However, essentially any decision is based on some belief (confidence) that a particular selection is proper, and the examiner asserts that selecting a particular distribution of network devices within network split to many sub-networks using some particular metrics (e.g., number of the devices within a subnetwork affecting efficiency of the network communication) would likely be the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and in the art of networking a skilled artisan would readily appreciate the fact that increasing the number of devices influence the performance of the system’s operation.
As per claims 22 and 31 the displayed elements representing the devices as taught by Chiang meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the markers. As per claims 23 and 32, additionally, and in alternative interpretation of the visual marker(s), Official Notice is taken that displaying QR codes associated with specific elements would have been old and well known in the art of computing at the time the application was filed offering the predictable benefit of usability.
Furthermore, as cited in claims 22-23 and 31-32 presentation of the QR code would not affect the functionality of the invention (compare them with claims 24 and 33, for example), thus would not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability. Essentially, it amounts to descriptive material that does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed.Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Lastly given no specific definition of “a threshold amount of” time/number instances (e.g., greater than 0?) as well as not clearly specified term “associated” or “a piece of information”, various interpretations of Chickering/Chiang’s teaching meet the limitation of claims 25, 27-28, 34, 36-37 and 40, e.g. the selection by the user a subnet (mesh) to add a device at a location allows communication with the device at that location more than one time, or the user is allowed to access data (a piece of information) enabling adding the device to the particular subnetwork (mesh).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Strong (USPUB 20180132174) teaches selection of connection to only to a threshold number of routers nearby in high density meshes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 26, 29, 33, 35 and 38 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433