DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/28/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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.
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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak et al. (US 20240314682 A1), hereinafter “Nayak”; and in further view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 20230337227 A1)”, hereinafter “Asterjadhi”.
Regarding claim 1, Nayak teaches A method comprising: receiving, by a first access point (AP), one or more network quality targets for a traffic flow between the first AP and a first station (STA) [Fig. 4-6; Par. 91- 105 teaches receiving traffic information and interference data from at least one STA]. ;
upon detecting a degradation in the performance metrics of the traffic flow, requesting, by the first AP, the first STA to monitor interference impacts on the performance metrics of the traffic flow caused by a plurality of other STAs [Nayak: Fig. 4-6; Par. 91- 105 teaches AP analyzes interference data and use this information to reduce the number of STAs that are involved in multi-AP coordination; and communicates to perform multi-AP coordination]; and
implementing an adjustment to network configurations of the first AP [Fig. 13; Par. 152- 158 teaches switch to new configuration or change data in the AP MlD for reconfiguration].
PNG
media_image1.png
540
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nayak does not teach selecting, by the first AP, a first channel coordination mode, from a set of available channel coordination modes, based on the one or more network quality targets;
responsive to implementation of the first channel coordination mode, receiving, by the first AP, performance metrics of the traffic flow under the first channel coordination mode from the first STA.
Nevertheless, Asterjadhi, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches selecting, by the first AP, a first channel coordination mode, from a set of available channel coordination modes, based on the one or more network quality targets [Asterjadhi: Fig.8; Par. 116- 122 teaches select access mode based on QoS parameter];
responsive to implementation of the first channel coordination mode, receiving, by the first AP, performance metrics of the traffic flow under the first channel coordination mode from the first STA [Asterjadhi: Figs. 8-9; Par. 116- 135 teaches of determining that the first AP has selected an uplink access mode to satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter. The uplink access mode may include the UL-MU scheduled access mode]
PNG
media_image2.png
396
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Asterjadhi to use coordination mode. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Asterjadhi in the Nayak system with a motivation to make this modification in order to select access mode to avoid interference (Asterjadhi: Par. 56).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Nayak in view of Asterjadhi further teaches wherein one or more network quality targets comprise at least one of a latency target or a reliability target of the traffic flow [Asterjadhi: Par. 56 teaches QoS parameter include latency].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Nayak in view of Asterjadhi further teaches wherein the adjustment on network configurations of the first AP comprises switching, by the first AP, to a second channel coordination mode, from the set of available channel coordination modes Asterjadhi: Figs. 8-9; Par. 116- 135.
Regarding claim 4, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Nayak in view of Asterjadhi further teaches wherein the plurality of other STAs are within a proximity of the first AP that can interfere with the performance metrics of the traffic flow [Nayak: Par. 146 teaches all
Regarding claim 5, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Nayak in view of Asterjadhi further teaches herein the one or more network quality targets for the traffic flow is determined based at least in part on one of defined quality of service (QoS) policies or a type of the traffic flow [Nayak: Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 6, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Nayak in view of Asterjadhi further teaches wherein the performance metrics of the traffic flow comprises at least one of (i) an access delay; (ii) a packet error rate; or (iii) a throughput; or (iv) a signal strength [Nayak: Par. 173; signal strength from interfering].
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Nayak teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media [Nayak: Par. 221] containing, in any combination, computer program code that, when executed by a computer system, performs operations comprising [Fig. 4-6; Par. 91- 105 teaches receiving traffic information and interference data from at least one STA]. ;
receiving, by a first access point (AP), one or more network quality targets for a traffic flow between the first AP and a first station (STA) [Fig. 4-6; Par. 91- 105 teaches receiving traffic information and interference data from at least one STA]. ;
upon detecting a degradation in the performance metrics of the traffic flow, requesting, by the first AP, the first STA to monitor interference impacts on the performance metrics of the traffic flow caused by a plurality of other STAs [Nayak: Fig. 4-6; Par. 91- 105 teaches AP analyzes interference data and use this information to reduce the number of STAs that are involved in multi-AP coordination; and communicates to perform multi-AP coordination]; and
implementing an adjustment to network configurations of the first AP [Fig. 13; Par. 152- 158 teaches switch to new configuration or change data in the AP MlD for reconfiguration].
PNG
media_image1.png
540
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nayak does not teach selecting, by the first AP, a first channel coordination mode, from a set of available channel coordination modes, based on the one or more network quality targets;
responsive to implementation of the first channel coordination mode, receiving, by the first AP, performance metrics of the traffic flow under the first channel coordination mode from the first STA.
Nevertheless, Asterjadhi, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches selecting, by the first AP, a first channel coordination mode, from a set of available channel coordination modes, based on the one or more network quality targets [Asterjadhi: Fig.8; Par. 116- 122 teaches select access mode based on QoS parameter];
responsive to implementation of the first channel coordination mode, receiving, by the first AP, performance metrics of the traffic flow under the first channel coordination mode from the first STA [Asterjadhi: Figs. 8-9; Par. 116- 135 teaches of determining that the first AP has selected an uplink access mode to satisfy the first uplink QoS parameter. The uplink access mode may include the UL-MU scheduled access mode]
PNG
media_image2.png
396
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Asterjadhi to use coordination mode. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Asterjadhi in the Nayak system with a motivation to make this modification in order to select access mode to avoid interference (Asterjadhi: Par. 56).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak et al. (US 20240314682 A1), hereinafter “Nayak”; and in further view of Asterjadhi et al. (US 20230337227 A1)”, hereinafter “Asterjadhi”, and in further view of Ergen (US 20210409976 A1), hereinafter “Ergen”.
Regarding claim 7, the combined Nayak in view of Asterjadhi teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1.
However, Nayak in view of Asterjadhi does not teach further comprising identifying, by the first AP, a respective interference impact caused by each respective STA, of the plurality of other STAs, using a machine learning (ML) model.
Nevertheless, Ergen, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising identifying, by the first AP, a respective interference impact caused by each respective STA, of the plurality of other STAs, using a machine learning (ML) model [Ergen: Par. 56 and 77 AI model 214 apply a machine learning algorithm to solve significant problems associated with Wi-Fi networks, thus reducing the cost of troubleshooting potential connection problems that may occur from several possible sources].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Ergen for using AI/ machine learning with AP. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Ergen in the Nayak/ Asterjadhi system with a motivation to make this modification in order to optimize performance in wireless networks [Ergen: Par. 77].
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant Claims 8 and 16 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Nayak/ Asterjadhi/ Ergen system.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of method and devices for receiving traffic between AP and STA to detect interference/degradation in the performance metrics [Nayak: Figs. 4-6], and select the channel coordination mode from set of available modes [Asterjadhi: Figs. 8-9] using AI [Ergen: Par. 77].
.
However, the combined Nayak/ Asterjadhi/ Ergen system does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claims 8 and 16 reciting;
“wherein the ML model is trained using historical training data comprising (a) output feature that includes identified sources of interference and (b) input features comprising at least one of the degradation in the performance metrics of the traffic flow between the first AP and the first STA, the interference impacts caused by the plurality of other STAs, or channel coordination modes operating on a plurality of other APs to which the plurality of other STAs are connected, and the ML model is trained to correlate the input features to the output feature”
Therefore, Claims 8 and 16 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights