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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is no text caption on the numeric labels of each element in Figures 4 – 6. For example, in Figure 5, the label 502 could have a text caption of “first radios”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “scanning module”, “predictive monitoring module” and “spatial mapping module” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, “…to predict what is the expected next channel…” in line 3 should be corrected to “…to predict . Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 6, “…predicting what is the expected next channel…” in line 2 should be corrected to “…predicting
In claim 12, “a memory (604) configured to:…” in line 16 should be corrected to “a memory
In claim 15, “…a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device (500) to…” in line 4 should be corrected to “a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 recites of a computer program. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g., the claim(s) is/are directed to a computer program per se. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "a program”, as recited in independent claim 14, line 1, includes a program embodied as a transmitted carrier wave. Carrier waves are an ephemeral transmission and do not fall within one of the four categories of patentable subject matter provided by 35 USC 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “scanning module” of claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “automated channel scanning”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the automated channel scanning. The use of the term “scanning” is not adequate structure because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “scanning” refers to scanning a channel or a number channels and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Claim limitation “predictive monitoring module” of claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “determining potential future channels based on historical data and machine learning algorithms.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “determining” refers to determining potential future channels and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Claim limitation “spatially mapping module” of claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “mapping captured events to a three-dimensional representation of the environment of the building”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the mapping. The use of the term “mapping” is not adequate structure because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “mapping” refers to mapping a number of events and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions of automated channel scanning, determining potential future channels and mapping captured events. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 8 – 9 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen et al (US 2026/0067723) in view of Lauronen et al (US 2025/0076357).
Re claim 1, Alanen teaches of a method for Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic (Figures 1 – 3) in a building (shopping mall, Paragraphs 0039 and 0049 – 0050), the method comprises: periodically scanning, by a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device, Wi-Fi channels in the building to identify Wi-Fi client devices and access points on their current channels (Paragraphs 0009 – 0010, 0024 – 0025 and 0046, Fig.4); detecting roaming criteria including signal strength (RSSI, Paragraphs 0027 – 0028) and network parameters (Paragraph 0034) to determine potential channels (N-1 channels, Fig.4 and Paragraph 0048) to which the Wi-Fi client devices may roam (and one or more of the other receivers (e.g., receiver 204, 206) may be used to scan other channels to which the client device could potentially roam (e.g., switch), Paragraph 0040); capturing, by one or more first radios of the Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device, packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device on its current channel (Paragraphs 0040 and 0044 and #402, Fig.4); capturing, by one or more second radios of the Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device, packet traffic on an expected next channel to which the Wi-Fi client device is likely to roam (dynamically updating a list of candidate channels to which a device may roam, Paragraphs 0045 – 0048 and Fig.4); detecting a user-defined problem event (troubleshooting, Paragraphs 0014 and 0033). However, Alanen does not specifically teach of mapping the detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building.
Lauronen teaches of mapping a detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building (3D floor plan, Abstract and Paragraphs 0005 and 0016, troubleshooting, Paragraphs 0018 and 0054) (Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mapped the detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building so as to better assess the wireless network.
Re claim 2, Alanen teaches of wherein the method further comprises scanning the channels by one or more third radios to determine new potential roaming candidates (two receivers could be utilized to scan other channels to which the client device could potentially roam (e.g., switch) while only one other receiver could be utilized to scan other nearby access points to which the client device may connect, Paragraph 0041).
Re claim 4, Alanen teaches of wherein the method further comprises filtering captured data based on MAC addresses (Paragraph 0012).
Re claim 8, Alanen and Lauronen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as well as Lauronen teaches of wherein the method further comprises automatically adjusting the scanning and capturing frequencies based on detected network activity to optimize data collection efficiency (Paragraphs 0018, 0025, 0030, 0032 – 0033 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have automatically adjusted the scanning and capturing frequencies based on detected network activity for significant time savings for network planning, optimization, and/or troubleshooting.
Re claim 9, Alanen teaches of wherein the method further comprises correlating detected problem events with environmental changes such as physical obstructions or interference sources to improve troubleshooting accuracy (Paragraph 0031).
Re claim 14, Alanen teaches of a computer program for Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostics in a building, the computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0018).
Re claim 15, Alanen teaches of computer program product for Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostics in a building, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a program code, the program code comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0018).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen and Lauronen in view of Alanen et al (US 2025/0113234) (Alanen(2)).
Re claim 3, Alanen and Lauronen teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the method further comprises using a pre-constructed digital model of the Wi-Fi network environment and/or previous measurements of the building to predict what is the expected next channel.
Alanen(2) teaches of using a pre-constructed digital model of the Wi-Fi network environment (trained machine learning model, Fig.3) and/or previous measurements of the building to predict what is the expected next channel (#302, Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pre-constructed digital model of the Wi-Fi network environment and/or previous measurements of the building to predict what is the expected next channel for efficiently configuring the wireless network.
Re claim 6, Alanen and Lauronen teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the method further comprises predicting the expected next channel for Wi-Fi client device likely to roam using historical data and machine learning algorithms.
Alanen(2) teaches of predicting the expected next channel for Wi-Fi client device likely to roam using historical data and machine learning algorithms (Paragraph 0028 and Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have predicted the expected next channel for Wi-Fi client device likely to roam using historical data and machine learning algorithms for efficiently configuring the wireless network.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen and Lauronen in view of Valenza et al (US 2023/0027175).
Re claim 5, Alanen and Lauronen teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the method further comprises analyzing signal strength trends over time to refine predictions.
Valenza teaches of analyzing signal strength trends over time to refine predictions (Paragraphs 0063 – 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have analyzed signal strength trends over time to refine predictions to effectively analyze and visualize the wireless signal propagation of the wireless network.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen and Lauronen in view of Abdullah et al (“UTMInDualSymFi: A Dual-Band Wi-Fi Dataset for Fingerprinting Positioning in Symmetric Indoor Environments”, Data 2023, 8, 14, MDPI, 1 January 2023).
Re claim 7, Alanen and Lauronen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as well as Lauronen teaches of wherein detecting the problem event comprises user-initiated detection via a button on the Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device (Paragraphs 0050 and 0052). However, Alanen and Lauronen do not specifically teach of recording data for a predetermined period of time before and after the user presses the button to indicate the occurrence of the problem event, and wherein the recorded data comprises: packet traffic captured by the first and second radios, signal strength measurements, network parameters, and time stamps of the captured data.
Abdullah teaches of a memory (Page 13) configured to: store captured packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device (captured data type, Table 11), retain data for predetermined periods around the detection of problem events (last paragraph 0f Page 13), save signal strength measurements and network parameters (RSSI and network parameters, Table 11), and maintain time stamps for recorded data (time stamp, Table 11) (Pages 12 – 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a user press an event button for manually enabling detection of problem event occurrences. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a memory configured to: store captured packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device, retain data for predetermined periods around the detection of problem events, save signal strength measurements and network parameters, and maintain time stamps for recorded data for increase performance and reliability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen in view of Lauronen and further in view of Alanen(2).
Re claim 10, Alanen teaches of a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device, the Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device comprising: one or more first radios configured to capture packet traffic on the current channel of a Wi-Fi client device; one or more second radios configured to capture packet traffic on an expected next channel to which the Wi-Fi client device may roam (see claim 1); a scanning module configured for automated channel scanning (scanning logic, Paragraphs 0020, 0025 and 0037) (see claim 1); signal strength sensors configured for proximity measurements using received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (measurement device, Figures 1 and 3, Paragraph 0030, see claim 1). However, Alanen does not specifically teach of a predictive monitoring module configured to determine potential future channels based on historical data and machine learning algorithms; an event button configured to allow user-initiated detection of problem event occurrences; and a spatial mapping module configured to map captured events to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building.
Lauronen teaches of mapping a detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building (3D floor plan, Abstract and Paragraphs 0005 and 0016, troubleshooting, Paragraphs 0018 and 0054) (Fig.2) and an event button configured to allow user-initiated detection of problem event occurrences (Paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
Alanen(2) teaches of a predictive monitoring module configured to determine potential future channels based on historical data and machine learning algorithms (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mapped the detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building so as to better assess the wireless network and to have a user press an event button for manually enabling detection of problem event occurrences. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have predicted the expected next channel for Wi-Fi client device likely to roam using historical data and machine learning algorithms for efficiently configuring the wireless network.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen, Lauronen and Alanen(2) in view of Choi et al (US 2024/0373491).
Re claim 11, Alanen teaches of wherein the Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device further comprises one or more third radios configured to periodically scan Wi-Fi channels to identify new potential roaming candidates (two receivers could be utilized to scan other channels to which the client device could potentially roam (e.g., switch) while only one other receiver could be utilized to scan other nearby access points to which the client device may connect, Paragraph 0041). Alanen, Lauronen and Alanen(2) do not specifically mention of updating the predictive monitoring module with real-time data.
Choi teaches of updating the predictive monitoring module with real-time data (Figures 4A – 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have updated the predictive monitoring module with real-time data to reduce an error/loss function.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen, in view of Lauronen and further in view of Abdullah et al (“UTMInDualSymFi: A Dual-Band Wi-Fi Dataset for Fingerprinting Positioning in Symmetric Indoor Environments”, Data 2023, 8, 14, MDPI, 1 January 2023).
Re claim 12, Alanen teaches of a system for Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostics (Figures 1 – 3) in a building (shopping mall, Paragraphs 0039 and 0049 – 0050), wherein the system comprises: a Wi-Fi connectivity diagnostic device (Figures 1 – 3) comprising: one or more first radios configured to capture packet traffic on the current channel of a Wi-Fi client device (N-1 radios with N-1 channels, Paragraphs 0045 and 0048), one or more second radios configured to capture packet traffic on an expected next channel where the Wi-Fi client device may roam (and one or more of the other receivers (e.g., receiver 204, 206) may be used to scan other channels to which the client device could potentially roam (e.g., switch), Paragraph 0040), and optionally, one or more third radios configured to periodically scan channels in the building to identify Wi-Fi client devices and access points and update potential roaming channels (This limitation is optional for claim 12 and Examiner has not given patentable weight on this limitation) (For purpose of art rejection: the limitation is taught by Alanen, updating the list of N-1 channels, Paragraphs 0043 – 0048 and Fig.4); a processor (controller, Figures 1 and 3) configured to: control the operation of the multiple radios, analyze roaming criteria including signal strength (RSSI, Paragraphs 0027 – 0028) and network parameters (Paragraph 0034), predict potential channels to which the Wi-Fi client device may roam (dynamically updating a list of candidate channels to which a device may roam, Paragraph 0043, Fig.4 and Paragraph 0048), detect problem events (troubleshooting, Paragraphs 0014 and 0033). However, Alanen does not specifically teach of mapping detected problem events to a spatial floorplan of the building. Alanen does not specifically teach of a memory configured to: store captured packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device, retain data for predetermined periods around the detection of problem events, save signal strength measurements and network parameters, and maintain time stamps for recorded data; and a user interface, comprising: a button configured to allow a user to indicate the occurrence of a problem event, and an interface to display or output diagnostic information and spatial maps.
Lauronen teaches of mapping detected problem events to a spatial floorplan of the building (3D floor plan, Abstract and Paragraphs 0005 and 0016, troubleshooting, Paragraphs 0018 and 0054) (Fig.2). Lauronen teaches of and a user interface, comprising: a button configured to allow a user to indicate the occurrence of a problem event, and an interface to display or output diagnostic information and spatial maps (Paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
Abdullah teaches of a memory (Page 13) configured to: store captured packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device (captured data type, Table 11), retain data for predetermined periods around the detection of problem events (last paragraph 0f Page 13), save signal strength measurements and network parameters (RSSI and network parameters, Table 11), and maintain time stamps for recorded data (time stamp, Table 11) (Pages 12 – 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mapped the detected problem event to a three-dimensional (X, Y, Z) representation of the environment of the building so as to better assess the wireless network and to have a user press an event button for manually enabling detection of problem event occurrences. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a memory configured to: store captured packet traffic originating from and terminating at the Wi-Fi client device, retain data for predetermined periods around the detection of problem events, save signal strength measurements and network parameters, and maintain time stamps for recorded data for increase performance and reliability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alanen, Lauronen and Abdullah in view of Omer (US 2024/0377526).
Re claim 13, Alanen, Lauronen and Abdullah teach all the limitations of claim 12 except of wherein the system further comprises an adjustable antenna array configured to dynamically adjust its orientation and/or configuration and signal focus to optimize the reception and capture of Wi-Fi signals based on the detected roaming criteria and current network conditions.
Omer teaches of a system that comprises an adjustable antenna array configured to dynamically adjust its orientation and/or configuration and signal focus to optimize the reception and capture of Wi-Fi signals based on the detected roaming criteria and current network conditions (beamforming, Paragraphs 0027 and 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have system further comprise an adjustable antenna array configured to dynamically adjust its orientation to optimize signal quality, extend range, and for faster speeds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights