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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,290 (hereinafter Patent ‘290). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 1 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 1, 10 and 19 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 1 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 1, 10 and 19 of the IA is broader than claim 1 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 1 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 1 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 2, 11 and 20 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 1 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 2, 11 and 20 of the IA is broader than claim 1 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 1 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 3 and 12 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 2 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 3 and 12 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 2 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 3 and 12 of the IA is broader than claim 2 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 2 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 4 and 13 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 3 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 4 and 13 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 3 of Patent ‘290. Thus claim 4 and 13 of the IA is broader than claim 3 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 3 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 5 and 14 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 4 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 5 and 14 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 5 and claim 14 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 5 and 14 of the IA is broader than claim 4 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 4 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 6 and 15 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 5 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claim 6 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 5 of Patent ‘290. Thus claim 6 of the IA is broader than claim 5 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 5 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 7 and 16 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 6 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 7 and 16 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 6 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 7 and 16 of the IA is broader than claim 6 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 6 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 8 and 17 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 7 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 8 and 17 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 7 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 8 and 17 of the IA is broader than claim 7 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 7 of Patent ‘290.
Claims 9 and 18 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 8 of Patent ‘290 with the differences being that claims 9 and 18 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 8 of Patent ‘290. Thus claims 9 and 18 of the IA is broader than claim 8 of Patent ‘290 and an obvious variation of the claim 8 of Patent ‘290.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,137,024 (hereinafter Patent ‘024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 1 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 1, 10 and 19 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 1 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 1, 10 and 19 of the IA is broader than claim 1 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 1 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 2 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 2, 11 and 20 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 2 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 2, 11 and 20 of the IA is broader than claim 2 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 1 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 3 and 12 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 2 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 3 and 12 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 2 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 3 and 12 of the IA is broader than claim 2 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 2 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 4 and 13 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 3 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 4 and 13 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 3 of Patent ‘024. Thus claim 4 and 13 of the IA is broader than claim 3 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 3 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 5 and 14 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 4 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 5 and 14 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 5 and claim 14 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 5 and 14 of the IA is broader than claim 4 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 4 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 6 and 15 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 5 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claim 6 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 5 of Patent ‘024. Thus claim 6 of the IA is broader than claim 5 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 5 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 7 and 16 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 6 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 7 and 16 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 6 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 7 and 16 of the IA is broader than claim 6 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 6 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 8 and 17 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 7 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 8 and 17 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 7 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 8 and 17 of the IA is broader than claim 7 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 7 of Patent ‘024.
Claims 9 and 18 of the instant application (hereinafter IA) recites similar claim limitations to claim 8 of Patent ‘024 with the differences being that claims 9 and 18 of the IA omits several claim limitations found in claim 8 of Patent ‘024. Thus claims 9 and 18 of the IA is broader than claim 8 of Patent ‘024 and an obvious variation of the claim 8 of Patent ‘024.
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.
The factual inquiries 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) 1-3, 10-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal et al. 2008/0049634 (hereinafter Goyal), in view of Kern et al. US 2004/0260899 (hereinafter Kern).
Regarding claim 1, Goyal teaches a system [Goyal, Fig. 4]
PNG
media_image1.png
680
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising:
memory, and [Goyal, Fig. 4, Memory 404]
one or more processors in communication with the memory, the one or more processors [Goyal, Processor 402 in communication via the BUS 408 with the memory 404]
configured to:
determine, based on a determination that a root cause of a network event is associated with an Access Point (AP) device, a classification of the AP device as an edge device or non-edge device;
([Goyal, Figs. 1 and 4b, 360, 366, ¶31-¶32, ¶35] Goyal teaches determining, based on a which router’s interface is contributing to poor QoS at step 366 of Fig 4b (interpreted as the claimed determination that a root cause) of a quality falling below the threshold 360 of Fig. 4b (interpreted as the claimed network event is associated with an access point (AP) device, classification of the router/AP device as an edge device (shown as the edge router in Fig. 1 of Goyal serves as an access point for communication to/from the network 102 and Step 364 of Fig. 4b of Goyal) or non-edge device (other routers not shown in the backbone of the WAN as per ¶14 and ¶31 of Goyal) wherein the claimed AP is the router of Goyal. Goyal also teaches wherein the step ordering of Fig. 4b may be changed and still achieve the same result which allows for steps 360, 364 and 366 to depend on one another in any order and still achieve the same result.)
determine, based on the classification of the AP device, whether to bypass a network management action for the AP device for the network event.
([Goyal, Fig. 4, Step 368, ¶34] Goyal teaches that the network admin may determine to take corrective actions such as adjusting or bypassing the router causing the poor/low QoS. Thus determining whether to bypass a network device results in the outcome of to take management action for the AP device for the network event instead of bypassing)
But Goyal does not teach wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action.
However, Kern teaches wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action.
([Kern, ¶50] Kern discloses that the network admin may configure the system to be determined to perform corrective action or do nothing which effectively executes a bypass of network management action for the device for the network event.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal, indicating a network management system that is able to monitor traffic statistics and QoS of the access point devices at the edge of the network providing access to the network 102 for routing traffic over the network, determining whether to devices of the network are edge devices and based on the determination that the devices are edge devices deciding whether to perform a network management action, with the teachings of Kern, indicating that the process of determining whether to perform a network management action is inclusive of determining to bypass a network management action and no nothing related to a management network action. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to allow for temporary failures or drops in QoS to resolve itself [Kern, ¶50].
Regarding claim 10, Goyal teaches a method comprising:
determining, based on a determination that a root cause of a network event is associated with an Access Point (AP) device, a classification of the AP device as an edge device or non-edge device;
([Goyal, Figs. 1 and 4b, 360, 366, ¶31-¶32, ¶35] Goyal teaches determining, based on a which router’s interface is contributing to poor QoS at step 366 of Fig 4b (interpreted as the claimed determination that a root cause) of a quality falling below the threshold 360 of Fig. 4b (interpreted as the claimed network event is associated with an access point (AP) device, classification of the router/AP device as an edge device (shown as the edge router in Fig. 1 of Goyal which serves as an access point for communication to/from the network 102 and Step 364 of Fig. 4b of Goyal) or non-edge device (other routers not shown in the backbone of the WAN as per ¶14 and ¶31 of Goyal) wherein the claimed AP is the router of Goyal. Goyal also teaches wherein the step ordering of Fig. 4b may be changed and still achieve the same result which allows for steps 360, 364 and 366 to depend on one another in any order and still achieve the same result.)
determining, based on the classification of the AP device, whether to bypass a network management action for the AP device for the network event.
([Goyal, Fig. 4, Step 368, ¶34] Goyal teaches that the network admin may determine to take corrective actions such as adjusting or bypassing the router causing the poor/low QoS. Thus determining whether to bypass a network device results in the outcome of to take management action for the AP device for the network event instead of bypassing)
But Goyal does not teach wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action.
However, Kern teaches wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action.
([Kern, ¶50] Kern discloses that the network admin may configure the system to be determined to perform corrective action or do nothing which effectively executes a bypass of network management action for the device for the network event.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal, indicating a network management system and method that is able to monitor traffic statistics and QoS of the access point devices at the edge of the network providing access to the network 102 for routing traffic over the network, determining whether to devices of the network are edge devices and based on the determination that the devices are edge devices deciding whether to perform a network management action, with the teachings of Kern, indicating that the process of determining whether to perform a network management action is inclusive of determining to bypass a network management action and no nothing related to a management network action. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to allow for temporary failures or drops in QoS to resolve itself [Kern, ¶50].
Regarding claim 19, Goyal teaches a non-transitory computer-readable media
[Goyal, Fig. 4, Memory 404]
configured with instructions that when executed cause one or more processors [Goyal, Fig. 4 Processor 402 in communication via the BUS 408 with the memory 404 comprising instructions 424]
to:
determine, based on a determination that a root cause of a network event is associated with an Access Point (AP) device, a classification of the AP device as an edge device or non-edge device;
([Goyal, Figs. 1 and 4b, 360, 366, ¶31-¶32, ¶35] Goyal teaches determining, based on a which router’s interface is contributing to poor QoS at step 366 of Fig 4b (interpreted as the claimed determination that a root cause) of a quality falling below the threshold 360 of Fig. 4b (interpreted as the claimed network event is associated with an access point (AP) device, classification of the router/AP device as an edge device (shown as the edge router in Fig. 1 of Goyal serves as an access point for communication to/from the network 102 and Step 364 of Fig. 4b of Goyal) or non-edge device (other routers not shown in the backbone of the WAN as per ¶14 and ¶31 of Goyal) wherein the claimed AP is the router of Goyal. Goyal also teaches wherein the step ordering of Fig. 4b may be changed and still achieve the same result which allows for steps 360, 364 and 366 to depend on one another in any order and still achieve the same result.)
determine, based on the classification of the AP device, whether to bypass a network management action for the AP device for the network event.
([Goyal, Fig. 4, Step 368, ¶34] Goyal teaches that the network admin may determine to take corrective actions such as adjusting or bypassing the router causing the poor/low QoS. Thus determining whether to bypass a network device results in the outcome of to take management action for the AP device for the network event instead of bypassing)
But Goyal does not teach wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action.
However, Kern teaches wherein the determination may be to bypass a network management action. ([Kern, ¶50] Kern discloses that the network admin may configure the system to be determined to perform corrective action or do nothing which effectively executes a bypass of network management action for the device for the network event.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal, indicating a network management system that is able to monitor traffic statistics and QoS of the access point devices at the edge of the network providing access to the network 102 for routing traffic over the network, determining whether to devices of the network are edge devices and based on the determination that the devices are edge devices deciding whether to perform a network management action, with the teachings of Kern, indicating that the process of determining whether to perform a network management action is inclusive of determining to bypass a network management action and no nothing related to a management network action. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to allow for temporary failures or drops in QoS to resolve itself [Kern, ¶50].
Regarding claim 2, claim 11 and claim 20, the combination of Goyal, in view of Kern teaches the system of claim 1, the method of claim 10 and the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19 respectively, wherein the AP device is classified as an edge device, [Goyal, Fig. 4, Step 364]
wherein the network event comprises a degradation in network performance, and [Goyal, Fig. 4, Steps 360 and 366]
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to bypass the network management action.
[Kern, ¶50]
The rationale of obviousness and motivation to combine the applied prior art is the same as that which is expressed in the rejection of claims 1 or 10 above.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 12, the combination of Goyal, in view of Kern teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10 respectively, wherein the AP device is classified as an non-edge device, [Goyal, Fig. 4, ¶31 (detecting routers in the path and indicating the detection of all the routers of the path that are edge routers and the other remaining are non-edge routers)]
wherein the network event comprises a degradation in network performance, and [Goyal, Fig. 4, Steps 360 and 366], and
wherein the network management action comprises executing a mitigation action with respect to the AP device. [Goyal, ¶34 (adjusting or by passing the router)]
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal, in view of Kern as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Vuggrala et al. US 2022/0191714 (hereinafter Vuggrala).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 13, the combination of Goyal, in view of Kern teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10 respectively, wherein to determine the classification of the AP device comprises the one or more processors [Goyal, Fig. Figs. 4b and 5, Step 364 and Processor 402], but it does not teach being configured to:
determine whether the AP device is on a periphery of a graph of the plurality of AP devices; and
based on a determination that the AP device is on the periphery of the graph of the plurality of AP devices, determine that the classification of the AP device comprises an edge device.
However, Vuggrala teaches being configured to:
determine whether the AP device is on a periphery of a graph of the plurality of AP devices; and ([Vuggrala, Fig. 4, ¶32] Vuggrala teaches wherein the graph of the network is generated comprising a determination of whether the AP device is on the periphery of the graph of the plurality of AP devices. This is shown as the AP devices which are correlated with the highest pathlosses or no indicated pathloss due to distance restricting communication therebetween (e.g. AP-4 and AP-5 or Domain 1 of Fig. 4).)
based on a determination that the AP device is on the periphery of the graph of the plurality of AP devices, determine that the classification of the AP device comprises an edge device.
([Vuggrala, Fig. 4, ¶32] Vuggrala teaches wherein the graph of the network is generated comprising a further determination and classification through disclosure of the AP device is on the periphery of the graph is an edge AP device (e.g. AP-4 and AP-5 or Domain 1 of Fig. 4) which have the highest path loss between other APs and cannot hear each other due to the communicable distance therebetween.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal in view of Kern, indicating network of a plurality of APs/routers of the network under network management, with the teachings Vuggrala, indicating the ability to graph the network and determined the placement of the APs within the network domains and domain partitions using pathloss data. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve topology mapping using communicability metrics between the devices indicating the range of the coverage area.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 14, the combination of Goyal, in view of Kern and Vuggrala teaches the system of claim 4 and the method of claim 13 respectively, wherein to determine whether the AP device is on the periphery of the plurality of AP devices comprises the one or more processors configured to:
create an AP neighborhood graph having a plurality of nodes, wherein each node represents a corresponding AP device of the plurality of AP devices and each edge between a first AP and a second AP indicates that the first AP can receive a signal from the second AP at a power above a predetermined threshold [Vuggrala, Figs. 4-5 ¶32-¶35)];
determine a betweenness centrality value for each node of the plurality of nodes [Vuggrala, Fig. 4 ¶32-¶35 and ¶39-¶41 (betweenness value being a indicated by a pathloss value]; and
determine that the AP device is on the periphery of the AP neighborhood graph based on the betweenness centrality value for the node corresponding to the AP device ([Vuggrala, Figs. 4-5 ¶32-¶35] APs are determined to be on the edge based on having the larger pathloss values or not connected as indicated by AP-4 and AP-5 of Domain 1 of Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal, in view of Kern as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Konstantakopoulos et al. US 10,419,954 (hereinafter Konsta).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 15, the combination of Goyal, in view of Kern teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10 respectively, wherein to determine the classification of the AP device comprises the one or more processors [Goyal, Fig. Figs. 4b and 5, Step 364 and Processor 402] but it does not teach being configured to:
for each AP device of the plurality of AP devices, maintain a join count of a number of times that the respective AP device is used by a user equipment (UE) to join the wireless network; and
determine that the classification of the AP device comprises an edge device based on the join count.
However, Konsta teaches the one or more processors configured to:
for each AP device of the plurality of AP devices, maintain a join count of a number of times that the respective AP device is used by a UE to join the wireless network; and
(Konsta teaches wherein a join count is represented as each successful attempt to connect to an AP is captured as a data point [Konsta, Col. 2, Lns 55-Col. 3, Lns 11])
determine that the classification of the AP device comprises an edge device based on the join count.
(Konsta teaches wherein a classification is determined of the AP via processing of the captured data points with the networked APs and is depicted as AP data points near the edge of each cluster/group of APs [Konsta, Fig. 2, 250-270])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal in view of Kern, indicating network of a plurality of APs/routers under network management within devices having weak QoS at APs/routers having determinable classification as an edge router/AP, with the teachings Konsta, indicating the ability track the join count. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve network management using association and communicability metrics between the devices indicating the range of the coverage area and load balancing.
Regarding claim 7 and claim 16, the combination of Iyer, in view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10 respectively, wherein to determine the classification of the AP device comprises the one or more processors [Goyal, Fig. Figs. 4b and 5, Step 364 and Processor 402] but it does not teach being configured to:
for each AP device of the plurality of AP devices, maintain a leave count of a number of times that a user equipment (UE) associated with the AP device disassociates with the AP device and leaves the wireless network; and
determine that the classification of the AP device comprises the edge device based on the leave count.
However, Konsta teaches for each AP device of the plurality of AP devices, maintain a leave count of a number of times that a user equipment (UE) associated with the AP device disassociates with the AP device and leaves the wireless network; and
(a leave count is represented as each unsuccessful/failure of an attempt to getting a client to a Run state onboarding with the network via an associated AP [Konsta, Col. 2, Lns 61-Col. 3, Lns 11].)
determine that the classification of the AP device comprises the edge device based on the leave count.
(wherein a classification is determined of the AP via processing of the captured data points as an edge AP of each clustered/grouped low, middle & high performing AP is performed based on the unsuccessful/failure of attempts getting a client to a Run state onboarding with the network via an associated AP and is depicted as the AP data point near the edge of each cluster/group of APs 250-270 of Konsta, Fig 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal in view of Kern, indicating network of a plurality of APs/routers under network management within devices having weak QoS at APs/routers having determinable classification as an edge router/AP, with the teachings Konsta, indicating the ability track the leave count. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve network management using association and communicability metrics between the devices indicating the range of the coverage area and load balancing.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer, in view of Chen as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Latapie et al. US 2021/0390423 (hereinafter Latapie).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 18, Goyal, in view of Kern teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10 respectively, wherein to determine the network event, the one or more processors are configured to determine the root cause of the network event. ([Goyal, Figs. 1 and 4b-5, Steps 360 and 366, ¶31-¶32, ¶35] Goyal teaches determining, based on a which router’s interface is contributing to poor QoS at step 366 of Fig 4b (interpreted as the claimed determination that a root cause) of a quality falling below the threshold 360 of Fig. 4b (interpreted as the claimed network event is associated with an access point (AP) device, classification of the router/AP device as an edge device (shown as the edge router in Fig. 1 of Goyal and Step 364 of Fig. 4b of Goyal) or non-edge device (other routers not shown in the backbone of the WAN as per ¶14 and ¶31 of Goyal) wherein the claimed AP is the router of Goyal. Goyal also teaches wherein the step ordering of Fig. 4b may be changed and still achieve the same result which allows for steps 360, 364 and 366 to depend on one another in any order and still achieve the same result.), it does not explicitly teach wherein this is based on the output of a machine learning model.
However, Latapie teaches determining the root cause of the network event based on the output of a machine learning model [Latapie, ¶228].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Goyal, in view of Kern, indicating a system of network management which performs analysis of network performance metrics of connected AP/router to determine root causes of network events, with the teachings of Latapie, indicating that root causes of network events may be determined by a machine learning model. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine and/or predict current and future network events based on monitored indicators such as traffic loads for network segments and congestion conditions based on the known AP and network link capacities in view of the workload pending for the AP and its onboarded clients that have attached to it for network access, and then based on this determination/prediction identify a root cause and possible corresponding solution without a need for direct intervention by a network administrator to make the determination based on the available monitored network information and network event(s) which reduces the overall cost required for hiring staff to monitor and make determinations of root causes which may also lead to reduced costs for resolving the determined problem of the root cause.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner has conducted an search of the available Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference the claim limitations of claim 8 and claim 17 reciting the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, wherein to determine the classification of the AP device, the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a bandwidth utilization of the AP device; and determine that the classification of the AP device comprises the edge device based on the bandwidth utilization being below a configurable or predetermined threshold, in combination with all the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights