DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) in view of Emadzadeh et al. (US 2015/0045054).
For Claims 1 and 20, Desai teaches a method and a device, comprising:
a processor (see paragraph 154); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (see paragraph 20); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises an allocation logic (see paragraphs 156-157) that is configured to:
receive discovery data and signal data (see paragraphs 21-22, 28), wherein:
the discovery data indicates an association of a plurality of first network devices and a plurality of second network devices connected to the plurality of first network devices, the plurality of second network devices being deployed across one or more floors in a space (see paragraph 21: AP groups; paragraphs 18, 20: floors); and
the signal data is associated with a set of second network devices of the plurality of second network devices (see paragraphs 28, 145);
classify the plurality of second network devices into a set of clusters based on the received discovery data and the received signal data (see paragraph 167);
determine a sequence of the one or more floors (see paragraphs 140, 150-152, 167); and
allocate a floor-level identifier to at least one second network device of the plurality of second network devices based on the determined sequence (see abstract, paragraphs 150-152, 167: floor map).
Desai as applied above is not explicit as to, but Emadzadeh teaches determining a sequence of the one or more floors based on the set of clusters (see paragraph 23).
Thus it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make determinations based on subsets of data when determining the sequence of floors. The motivation would be to leverage the pattern of data when making determinations about the floors.
For Claim 2, Desai further teaches the device, wherein the plurality of first network devices comprises switches configured to implement at least one of a connectivity discovery protocol or a link layer discovery protocol (see paragraphs 21-22, 28, 167).
For Claim 3, Desai further teaches the device, wherein the plurality of second network devices comprises access points deployed across the one or more floors (see paragraphs 18-21).
For Claim 4, Desai further teaches the device, wherein the discovery data comprises at least one of connectivity discovery protocol data or link layer discovery protocol data (see paragraphs 21-22, 28).
For Claim 5, Desai further teaches the device, wherein the discovery data comprises at least one of: a device name or a location identifier, of a first network device of the plurality of first network devices and a second network device of the plurality of second network devices (see paragraph 21).
For Claim 6, Desai further teaches the device, wherein the signal data comprises received signal strength indicator data (see paragraphs 28, 145).
For Claim 7, Desai further teaches the device, wherein a cluster of the set of clusters corresponds to a floor of the one or more floors (see paragraph 167).
For Claim 8, Desai as applied above is not explicit as to, but Emadzadeh teaches the device, wherein the allocation logic is further configured to determine a number of floors in the space based on a count of clusters in the set of clusters (see paragraph 23: the floor number is associated with a floor cluster, so obvious to number of floors is determined).
Thus it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make determinations based on subsets of data when determining the number of floors. The motivation would be to leverage the pattern of data when making determinations about the floors.
For Claim 15, Desai does teach updating the sequence (see paragraphs 28, 150-152 and thus at least implicitly teaches the following steps. However Emadzadeh teaches the device, wherein the allocation logic is further configured to:
receive new discovery data and new signal data (see paragraphs 22, 30: iterative process);
update the set of clusters based on the new discovery data and the new signal data (see paragraphs 22, 30);
determine that a first count of clusters in the updated set of clusters is different from a second count of clusters in the set of clusters (see paragraphs 22-23, 30); and
update the sequence of the one or more floors based on the determination that the first count of clusters is different from the second count of clusters (see paragraphs 22-23, 30).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to update the values in Desai using the method of Emadzadeh. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of responding dynamically to modifications to network devices.
For Claim 16, Desai as applied above is not explicit as to, but Emadzadeh teaches the device, wherein the allocation logic is further configured to allocate a new floor-level identifier to the at least one second network device based on the updated sequence (see paragraph 30).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to update the values in Desai using the method of Emadzadeh. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of responding dynamically to modifications to network devices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) and Emadzadeh et al. (US 2015/0045054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ronen et al. (US 2021/0235287).
For Claim 9, Desai further teaches the device 1, wherein the allocation logic is further configured to perform machine learning to classify the plurality of second network devices into the set of clusters (see paragraphs 37, 56).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Ronen teaches using unsupervised machine learning (see abstract, paragraphs 49, 52-54, 63).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ unsupervised machine learning as in Ronen when implementing the method of Desai. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known method for reducing the need for human intervention.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) and Emadzadeh et al. (US 2015/0045054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2014/0355484).
For Claim 10, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Foster teaches the device, wherein, prior to determining the sequence, the allocation logic is further configured to validate the set of clusters (see paragraphs 41, 109).
Thus it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Foster when processing the clusters as in Desai. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known statistical process to perform a known operation.
For Claim 11, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Foster further teaches the device, wherein the set of clusters is validated based on a variance value between the set of clusters and a variance value within the set of clusters (see paragraphs 41, 109).
Thus it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Foster when processing the clusters as in Desai. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known statistical process to perform a known operation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) and Emadzadeh et al. (US 2015/0045054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oran et al. (US 7149499).
For Claim 12, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Oran teaches the device, wherein the allocation logic is further configured to transmit an indication of the floor-level identifier allocated to the at least one second network device (see claims 25-27: determine floor location, transmit to other network entity).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide floor indications as in Oran when implementing the method of Desai. The motivation would be to make floor level information available throughout the network without the need for providing a floor plan of the building.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) and Emadzadeh et al. (US 2015/0045054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bejerano (US 2006/0146754).
For Claim 13, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Bejerano teaches the device, wherein the set of clusters is connected by one or more weighted edges (see paragraphs 7, 20, 33).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the mathematical method as in Bejerano when implementing the method of Desai. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known method for making a known calculation.
For Claim 14, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Bejerano further teaches the device, wherein the sequence of the one or more floors is determined based on weights of the one or more weighted edges (see paragraphs 7, 20, 33).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the mathematical method as in Bejerano when implementing the method of Desai. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known method for making a known calculation.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2021/0092616) in view of Yoo (US 2022/0014876).
For Claim 17, Desai teaches an access point (see paragraphs 21-22), comprising:
a processor (see paragraph 154); a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises an allocation logic (see paragraphs 156-156) that is configured to:
transmit signal data and discovery data (see paragraphs 21-22, 28), wherein the discovery data indicates an association of a switch and the access point and a plurality of other access points that are deployed across one or more floors in a space (see paragraphs 18, 20-21); and
determine a floor-level identifier allocation based on the transmitted signal data and the transmitted discovery data (see paragraphs 167, 150-152, abstract).
Desai as applied above is not explicit as to, but Yoo teaches receiving a floor-level identifier allocation at an access point (see paragraphs 112-114).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a floor level identifier as in Yoo when implementing the method of Desai. The motivation would be to make floor level information available at the endpoint without the need for providing a floor plan of the building.
For Claim 18, Desai further teaches the access point, wherein the signal data comprises received signal strength indicator data associated with the plurality of other access points (see paragraphs 28, 145), and the discovery data comprises at least one of connectivity discovery protocol data or link layer discovery protocol data (see paragraphs 21-22, 28, 167).
For Claim 19, Desai further teaches the access point, wherein the access point and the plurality of other access points are connected to a set of switches that provide the discovery data (see paragraphs 21-22, 28, 167).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dhir et al. (US 2024/0276441) teaches a system to collect data for mapping AP locations using clustering. MacMullan et al. (US 2018/0242165) teaches a system using weighted edges for determining access point arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 8/11/2026
