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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of US 15/920,049 (filed on Mar. 13, 1018 – now US Patent No. 12,261,887). The prosecution history and references cited in the above application have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For step 1, a claim is determined whether it falls within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage media, claim 15-21 are directed to an apparatus, and claims 22-28 are directed to a system. Therefore, the claims fall within at least one of the statutory categories of invention and passes step 1.
For step 2A (Prong One), a claim is determined whether it recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 recite limitations for:
“determining…that the first wireless device is a static device”
However, there are no elements recited in limitation [A] that would preclude it from being practically performed in the mind, or with pen/paper, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For example, the limitation can be interpreted as human judgement actions under (BRI) as they are recited with a high degree of generality. The act of determining if a particular device is a “static device” may simply be comparing model numbers, visual evaluation, reading off a label, or any other actions through mental judgement etc. Thus, the independent claims present at least one limitation that falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
For step 2A (Prong Two), a claim is determined whether it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements are:
“initiating…a signal improvement procedure on a second wireless device”
“information indicating that mobility of a first wireless device is below a mobility threshold” and “a signal strength associated with the first wireless device”
Various computer components (e.g., “an apparatus”, “a first wireless device”, “a second wireless device”, “processor[s]”, “memory”, “a non-transitory computer readable media”, etc.) for performing the claimed limitations
However, these elements fail to add something more meaningful to the judicial exception as generic computer components are used to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. For example, data [B] can simply be displayed on a computer screen to enable a human to determine if thresholds or conditions are met. Herein, the limitations are presented in a manner where a computer is simply used as a tool rather than being an integral part for improving technical features of the computer itself.
Furthermore, the limitations as a whole fail to integrate the idea into a practical application. In MPEP 2106.04(d), the considerations of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application include, but is not limited to, “[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” and “[a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” In the current claims, the high-level recitation of initiating “a signal improvement procedure” does not provide meaningful acts to improving functionality of a network, rather it is directed to a desired result or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107.” For example, the signal improvement procedure may simply display notifications, instructions, means to contact technical assistance, etc. according to dependent claims 6, 13, 20, and 27. These features do not actively improve the connectivity of devices in a wireless network. Therefore, initiating “a signal improvement procedure” is directed to insignificant post-solution activities under BRI in light of the specifications.
Thus, the independent claims, as a whole, fail to present enough elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, a claim is determined whether any elements, or combination of elements, are enough to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Since these elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that they can be represented as ordinary computer systems. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Having a hardware and software/logic agents to perform such elements does not instantly preclude it from mental activities if the act itself is presented in a generic/abstract manner – it would be mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, the independent claims are not patent eligible. Furthermore, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent Claims: The dependent claims similarly recite limitations directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. For example, claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19, 24 and 26 are direct to post-solution activities of outputting data for display, with no further actions actively performed. Furthermore, claims 4, 11, 18, and 25 recite limitations of mere data gathering – nothing meaningful is performed on the gathered data to integrate this extra-solution activity into a practical application. Furthermore, claims 6, 13, 20, and 27 are not meaningful for the reasons previously discussed for the independent claims. Furthermore, the dependent claims recite nominal features that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea (e.g., claims 2, 9, 16, and 23 further describe characteristics of the information, which does not add meaningful features as they remain being used in the high-level determination process to produce a desired outcome; claims 7, 14, 21, and 28 further recite conventional computing devices). Thus, none of the elements in those limitations would preclude them from being performed mentally nor do they present additional meaningful elements that are more than an abstract idea.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0176827 to Lehew et al. (hereinafter, “LEHEW”) in view of US 2016/0192209 to Rumreich (hereinafter, “RUMREICH”).
As per claim 1: LEHEW discloses: A method comprising: (a network tuner, capable of operating as a standalone utility, measures network bandwidth between two endpoint devices that can be connected wirelessly [LEHEW, ¶0030; 0053]; the measurement determines if the bandwidth falls below a threshold [LEHEW, ¶0022], in which tuning is required to maximize network throughput (i.e., signal strength), such as reducing obstructions in the wireless path, move/rotate a set-top box or access point, adjust antennas [LEHEW, ¶0026-0027; Fig. 2]).
LEHEW does not explicitly disclose, but RUMREICH discloses: determining, by a computing device and based on information indicating that mobility of a first wireless device is below a mobility threshold, that the first wireless device is a static device (a device is identified as mobile or static based at least partially on characteristics of received signal strength (RSS) by a gateway [RUMREICH, ¶0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the endpoint device’s mobility type(s) in LEHEW, such as disclosed in RUMREICH. The type of endpoint device would have enabled optimal adjustment of a radiation pattern or a reception pattern to receive wireless communications [RUMREICH, ¶0003-004; 0026], which would have been applicable in determining network tuning in LEHEW.
As per claim 2: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating RUMEICH in claim 1 is also applicable herein. Therefore, RUMREICH discloses: wherein the information is based on one or more of: a standard deviation associated with a plurality of signal strengths associated with the first wireless device; an amount of time the first wireless device was connected to a gateway device; or a quantity of data sent between the first wireless device and the gateway device (“…gateway 601 can determine whether a device is static or mobile based at least partially on characteristics of each device in the network. The characteristics can comprise received signal strength (“RSS”) to determine movement of each device. In one example, one or more processors of gateway 601 can take a series of RSS signal measurements for each device and determine whether the device is mobile based on a difference between one or more pairs of RSS measurements. In one example, a large difference between one or more pairs of RSS measurements can indicate that the mobile device being measured is a mobile device type. On the contrary, if the RSS is relatively stable, it can be determined that the device is stationary.” [RUMREICH, ¶0032]).
As per claim 6: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, LEHEW discloses: further comprising sending, to the second wireless device based on the initiating the signal improvement procedure, one or more of: an indication of low-connectivity locations; instructions to move the first wireless device closer to a gateway device; instructions to remove an obstacle between the first wireless device and the gateway device; instructions to move the gateway device; information for switching a service set identifier of the gateway device; a recommendation of hardware; an invitation to contact technical assistance; or an invitation to scan a room of the first wireless device for wireless signal levels (performance improving actions include: reducing obstructions in a wireless path, moving one or more wireless access points (WAPs), moving the set-top box, reorienting antennas, changing network topology, switching to a different wireless network band [LEHEW, ¶0041-0050; Fig. 2]).
As per claim 7: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating RUMREICH in claim 1 is also applicable herein. Therefore, LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose: wherein the computing device is a gateway device (a gateway [RUMREICH, ¶0019]), the first wireless device is a desktop computer, and the second wireless device is a mobile phone (the endpoints may be a computer 110 and a set-top box 140, connected wirelessly [LEHEW, ¶0030]; the operating environment where network performance tuning is performed may also include personal computers, server computers, hand-held devices, wireless phones, and the like [LEHEW, ¶0092]).
As per claim 8: Claim 8 is different in overall scope as claim 1. Claim 8 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1. Computer-executable instructions are also disclosed in [LEHEW, ¶0090]. Thus, the responses provided in claim 1 and herein are equally applicable to claim 8.
As per claim 9: Claim 9 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 9 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 2. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 2 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 9.
As per claim 13: Claim 13 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 13 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 6. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 6 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 13.
As per claim 14: Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 9 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 7. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 7 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 14.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 is different in overall scope as claim 1. Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus configure to perform instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1. Computing system for performing the embodiments [LEHEW, ¶0075]. Thus, the responses provided in claim 1 and herein are equally applicable to claim 15.
As per claim 16: Claim 9 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 16 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 2. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 2 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 16.
As per claim 20: Claim 20 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 20 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 6. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 6 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 20.
As per claim 21: Claim 21 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 21 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 7. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 7 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 21.
As per claim 22: Claim 22 is different in overall scope as claim 1. Claim 22 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 1. Computer environment 700 is also disclosed in [LEHEW, ¶0073; Fig. 7]. Thus, the responses provided in claim 1 and herein are equally applicable to claim 22.
As per claim 23: Claim 23 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 23 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 2. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 2 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 23.
As per claim 27: Claim 27 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 27 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 6. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 6 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 27.
As per claim 28: Claim 28 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 28 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 7. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 7 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 28.
Claims 3, 10, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEHEW in view of RUMREICH and in further view of US 2017/0126483 to Ponnuswamy (hereinafter, “PONNUSWAMY”).
As per claim 3: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. LEHEW and RUMREICH do not explicitly disclose, but PONNUSWAMY discloses: further comprising sending, to the second wireless device based on the determining and based on the signal strength, a message configured to cause output, by the second wireless device, of a selectable option to perform the signal improvement procedure (corrective actions to improve, or change, a performance level of a wireless connection are provided and selected for applying a corrective action [PONNUSWAMY, ¶0027, 0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any known solutions for improving the wireless connection, such as the corrective actions disclosed in [PONNUSWAMY, ¶0028-0035]. One would have been motivated to try any actions that can be automated (e.g., selected and executed on a computing device such as in PONNUSWAMY) or manual (e.g., instructions for moving obstacles between wireless paths such as in LEHEW) with reasonable success in improving wireless connections between endpoints.
As per claim 10: Claim 10 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 10 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 3. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 3 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 10.
As per claim 17: Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 17 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 3. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 3 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 17.
As per claim 24: Claim 24 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 24 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 3. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 3 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 24.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEHEW in view of RUMREICH and in further view of US 8,155,081 to Mater et al. (hereinafter, “MATER”).
As per claim 4: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. LEHEW and RUMREICH do not explicitly disclose, but MATER discloses: wherein the signal improvement procedure comprises acquiring a plurality of signal strengths associated with the second wireless device at a plurality of locations (for each location identified within a path, the map may store access point signal strengths measured at the location by, for example, point scanning unit 118 [MATER, col. 8, lines 38-40]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any known solutions for improving the wireless connection, such as performing and recording a plurality of signal strength measurements at different locations. By testing the signal strength of an endpoint (of LEHEW) at different locations, the location with the best signal strength can be determined when tuning the network performance.
As per claim 5: LEHEW in view of RUMREICH disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating MATER in claim 4 is also applicable in claim 5. Therefore, MATER discloses: further comprising causing output, by the second wireless device based on the initiating the signal improvement procedure, of instructions to move to a first location; based on receiving a signal strength associated with the second wireless device at the first location, causing output, by the second wireless device, of instructions to move to a second location (in learning mode, a client device may connect to the wireless network via an access point with the strongest signal strength identified by scanning access points available to the client device at each new location; the client device may also store, for future use by the client device, the respective access point signal strengths measured for each location in an operational environment map of the current operational environment, in association with a path through the operational environment [MATER, col. 3, lines 13-21]).
As per claim 11: Claim 11 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 11 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 4. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 4 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 11.
As per claim 12: Claim 12 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 12 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 5. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 5 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 12.
As per claim 18: Claim 18 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 18 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 4. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 4 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 18.
As per claim 19: Claim 19 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 19 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 5. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 5 and 15 are equally applicable to claim 19.
As per claim 25: Claim 25 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 25 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 4. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 4 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 25.
As per claim 26: Claim 26 incorporates all limitations of claim 22. Claim 26 is directed to a system comprising of devices performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 5 and 22 are equally applicable to claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0118101: Providing recommendation to relocate a computer to improve signal strength when a speed test indicates a need for improvement. See ¶0043.
US 2016/0302079: Monitoring a connection quality of a wireless link between a wireless extender and an access point. If the connection quality falls below a threshold, recommendations for improving the connection quality is provided. See ¶0024-0025.
US 2015/0055566: The connection quality provided by each node for a wireless device is determined by the node’s signal strength to the device. See ¶0010.
US 2015/0049616: A WLAN RSSI threshold is used to determine the quality of a communication link. This threshold can be determined based on the type of devices in a network. See ¶0057.
US 2014/0287783: Techniques for determining a motion state of a mobile device are disclosed. See Abstract.
US 2005/0070302: A wireless unit or WLAP will seek a location for better reception when the signal strength falls below a threshold. See ¶0013.
P. Dhere, P. Chilveri, R. Vatti, V. Iyer and K. Jagdale, "Wireless Signal Strength Analysis in a Home Network," 2018 International Conference on Current Trends towards Converging Technologies (ICCTCT), Coimbatore, India, 2018, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICCTCT.2018.8550931. (Different network tools are used to analyze a WLAN’s surroundings, including a heat mapper for signal strengths. See Abstract, pp. 3-4 & Fig. 6.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights