Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2018/0343165 to Anantharaman further in view of either EasyMesh article by Alleven or CS Elvitigala and BH Sudantha (cited as prior art and used in the rejection of claim 16 in the parent application 17/237,230).
Regarding claims 19 and 26-27, Anantharaman teaches an access point apparatus comprising:
at least one memory that stores a set of instructions; and
at least one processor that executes the instructions, the instructions, when executed (see Fig. 7 as described in sections [0059] to [0067], which show the recited structures within the access point), causing the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising:
causing the access point apparatus to operate as a controller of Wi-Fi Easy Mesh, and managing a mesh network (see section [0030], which teaches that a device may change its role in the local network and the device may act as an access point and the controller of the network, and see Fig. 3 as described in sections [0044] to [0046], which teach the device changing to access point mode).
transmitting to another communication apparatus, in a case where a predetermined condition is met, network information that can be used for reestablishing a network formed by the access point apparatus operating as the controller and information related to steering of a station apparatus (see sections [0028] to [0034] and [0040], which teach that a device may transmit information to another device to act as the controlling access point, and see sections [0011] to [0015], [0030], and [0048] to [0051], which teach steering information used to connect moving devices to different access points or devices within the local network. See sections [0046]-[0047], which teach that a device may send messages to another node to indicate or change its role in the network and also that the messages include information to route types of traffic or “duplicate or mimic” these connections (which is the recited “network information”).
Regarding the feature that the network is a Wi-Fi Easy Mesh network, as Anantharaman does not explicitly teach this type of network, either one of the articles to Alleven or Elvitigala and Sudantha is added.
In an analogous art, the articles to either Alleven or the article to Elvitigala and Sudantha teach the conventionality of ad-hoc network communicating with Wi-Fi Easy Mesh protocols.
Therefore, as Anantharaman teaches using a number of protocols and as the articles to either one of Alleven or the article to Elvitigala and Sudantha teach the conventionality of ad-hoc network communicating with Wi-Fi Easy Mesh protocols, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Anantharaman to use Wi-Fi Easy Mesh protocols, as they are conventionally used in ad-hoc networks.
Claims 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2019/0306710 to Cammarota.
Regarding claim 20, which recites “wherein the operations further comprise: performing, in a case where the access point apparatus is caused to operate as an agent of the Wi-Fi Easy Mesh, a search process for searching a partner apparatus to which the access point apparatus is to connect”, although sections [0041]-[0052] of Anantharaman teach switching device roles (and being an agent), Cammarota is added.
In an analogous art, Cammarota teaches the conventionality of using the IEEE 1905.1 ad-hoc network protocols. See section [0110] of Cammarota which also teaches the discovery and/or searching process and acting as an agent.
Therefore, as Anantharaman and Cammarota teach using a number of protocols (such as 1905.1) and as Cammarota teaches the conventionality of searching for a peer partner apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Anantharaman/Wi-Fi Easy Mesh protocols combination to search for a partner as in Cammarota, as these networks conventional allow for devices to switch roles and search/discover devices to take their place in the ad-hoc network.
Regarding claim 21, which recites “wherein in a case where a wired connection is enabled in the access point apparatus, the partner apparatus is searched in accordance with an IEEE 1905.1 standard in the search process”, see section [0071] of Cammarota, which explicitly teaches the 1905.1 protocol and see the wired connections in Fig. 1 and as described in section [0048].
Regarding claim 22, which recites “wherein in the search process, the partner apparatus is searched by using at least one of a scheme compliant with a Wi- Fi Protected Setup (WPS) standard and a Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) standard”, see the Abstract and sections [0006]-[0024] of Cammarota, which explicitly teach the DPP protocol, as recited.
Regarding claim 23, which recites “wherein the operations further comprise: when the access point apparatus is caused to operate as the agent, stopping operation as the agent in a case where the partner apparatus operating as a controller of the Wi-Fi Easy Mesh is not discovered in the search process”, as Anantharaman/Wi-Fi Easy Mesh teaches that a network has at least one controller, this feature would be taught and/or rendered obvious in view of these references.
Regarding claim 24, which recites “wherein the other communication apparatus is a smart device”, see sections [0052] to [0054] of Cammarota, which explicitly teach a smart device.
Regarding claim 25, which recites “wherein the smart device is a smart device capable of connecting to a public network using a LTE-Advanced scheme”, as described above, a smart device is taught by Cammarota and the language “is capable of” is intended use and may not carry patentable weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
