/DEBORAH J REYNOLDS/Director, Art Unit 2400 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 .
37 C.F.R. 1.198 Reopening after a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
When a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on appeal has become final for judicial review, prosecution of the proceeding before the primary examiner will not be reopened or reconsidered by the primary examiner except under the provisions of § 1.114 or § 41.50 of this title without the written authority of the Director, and then only for the consideration of matters not already adjudicated, sufficient cause being shown.
A Technology Center Director has authorized re-opening prosecution under 37 CFR 1.198 for the purpose of entering the new rejection.
/DEBORAH J REYNOLDS/Director, Art Unit 2400
Response to amendment
2. This is a non-final Office action in response to Patent Board Decision received on 02/03/2026.
3. Status of the claims:
• Rejections of Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-27 reversed by Patent Board Decision.
• Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-27 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 14 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to read, “wherein at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said plurality of available radio channels based on an outcome of at least …” to clarify the radio channels.
Claim 14 should be amended to read, “based on the data integrity checks performed on packets received on channels associated…”
Claim 23 should be amended to read, “A method of operating a digital radio communication system comprising a central device and a peripheral device arranged to operate in accordance with a predetermined….”
similar to the preamble of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 6-7, 11-12, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220200851), and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120190377).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith et al. teaches A digital radio communication system (Smith et al. teaches a network topology that is used for a number of internet-of-things (IoT) networks coupled through backbone links to gateways (para. [0045]; FIG. 2)) comprising a central device and a peripheral device arranged to operate in accordance with a predetermined communication protocol (Smith et al. teaches a gateway and IoT devices (para. [0054]; FIG. 3); any number of network protocols and communications standards are used (para. [0036]); devices communicate over LPWA links, Wi-Fi links (para. [0041]), employing relevant protocol), wherein the central and peripheral devices are both arranged to: transmit data packets over a plurality of available radio channels having different frequencies (Smith et al. teaches that the payload for longer messages is fragmented and are sent over parallel radio channels utilizing network division multiplexing (NDM) technique (para. [0116]); NDM supports multiple different network infrastructure paths, such as a number of low power wide area (LPWA) paths in concert with a number of IEEE 802.15.4g routes (para. [0116])[Examiner’s Note: LPWA and IEEE 802.15.4g routes operate on different frequencies]; fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129])); receive the data packets transmitted by the other respective device (Smith et al. teaches that fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129]); devices are in communication over LPWA links (para. [0054]; FIG. 3)).
Although operating in multi-link network and utilizing data integrity (para. [0051][0115]), Smith et al. does not teach and perform data integrity checks on the data packets received; wherein at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed. Li et al. teaches such limitations.
Li et al. is directed to method and arrangement in a wireless communication system. More specifically, Li et al. teaches and perform data integrity checks on the data packets received (Li et al. teaches that a check sum check is performed on data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel of the candidate channels (para. [0068]; FIG. 3); check sum check comprises extracting a check sum value from data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel, calculating a check sum based on the received data, and comparing the extracted check sum value with the calculated check sum (para. [0068])); wherein at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed (Li et al. teaches the check sum check is considered successful when the calculated check sum corresponds to the extracted check sum value, when comparing them (para. [0068]); the UE selects the prioritized candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is successful (para. [0070])[Examiner’s Note: selecting the channel indicates improvement of the channel rating from the prioritized candidate channel to the selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to selectee based on check sum result]) and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed (Li et al. teaches that the UE rejects the candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is unsuccessful (para. [0072])[Examiner’s Note: rejecting the channel indicates deteriorating channel rating from prioritized candidate channel to the non-selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to non-selectee based on check sum result]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NDM technique of Smith et al. to include the wireless radio channel selection technique, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 26, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to remove up to a maximum number of channels that have the worst ratings (Li et al. teaches that the rejected channel is removed from any temporarily stored list comprising candidate channels on which it has been temporarily stored (para. [0072]); another candidate radio channel, which has not been rejected, is then be selected according to some embodiments in an iterative way (para. [0072]); if there are no more candidate radio channels to select, a selection is made from temporarily stored channel candidates, which has not fulfilled the criterion (para. [0072])[Examiner’s Note: Up to all channels within the non-criterion-fulfilled candidate channels, maximum number, are removed if each channel is rejected]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to remove up to a maximum number of channels that have the worst ratings, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 26, and further, the references teach wherein the central and/or peripheral device is arranged to re-evaluate radio channels that have been removed from the channel map after a predetermined interval by returning said channels to the channel map (Li et al. teaches that non-prioritized candidate channels are reconsidered, if no valid channel candidates are detected (See Li et al. FIG. 3, Step 306 and Step 310, [0080]), the time it takes to perform step 306 to reach step 310 is a predetermined interval).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that the central and/or peripheral device is arranged to re-evaluate radio channels that have been removed from the channel map after a predetermined interval by returning said channels to the channel map, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assess each channel's rating at a recurring interval (Li et al. teaches that another candidate radio channel, which has not been rejected, then be selected in an iterative way (para. [0072])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that the at least one of central and peripheral devices is arranged to assess each channel’s rating at a recurring interval, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is further arranged to modify the rating of one or more channels based on the ratings of channels within a predetermined range of frequencies around said channel (Li et al. teaches that the check sum check is considered successful when the calculated check sum corresponds to the extracted check sum value, when comparing them otherwise, the check sum check is considered unsuccessful (para. [0068]); the UE selects the prioritized candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is successful (para. [0070]); the UE rejects the candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is unsuccessful (para. [0072]); another candidate radio channel, which has not been rejected, then be selected in an iterative way (para. [0072]); the method is iteratively for different candidate radio channel until a maximum number of radio channels have been selected (para. [0074])[Examiner’s Note: Once the channel check is unsuccessful, then another channel is examined, thus have a chance to be modified]; Smith et al. teaches that fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129])[Examiner’s Note: the number of different channels that were used to send are within a predetermined range of frequencies of each other]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that the ratings of one or more channels are modified based on the ratings of channels within a predetermined range of frequencies, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 22, Smith et al. teaches A digital radio transceiver (Smith et al. teaches a transceiver within IoT device (FIG. 11)) arranged to operate in accordance with a predetermined communication protocol (Smith et al. teaches a gateway and IoT devices (para. [0054]; FIG. 3); any number of network protocols and communications standards are used (para. [0036]); devices communicate over LPWA links, Wi-Fi links (para. [0041]), employing relevant protocol), wherein the transceiver is arranged to: transmit data packets over a plurality of available radio channels having different frequencies (Smith et al. teaches that the payload for longer messages is fragmented and are sent over parallel radio channels utilizing network division multiplexing (NDM) technique (para. [0116]); NDM supports multiple different network infrastructure paths, such as a number of low power wide area (LPWA) paths in concert with a number of IEEE 802.15.4g routes (para. [0116])[Examiner’s Note: LPWA and IEEE 802.15.4g routes operate on different frequencies]; fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129])); receive data packets transmitted by another digital radio transceiver (Smith et al. teaches that fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129]); devices are in communication over LPWA links (para. [0054]; FIG. 3)).
Although operating in multi-link network and utilizing data integrity (para. [0051][0115]), Smith et al. does not teach perform data integrity checks on the data packets received; and assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed. Li et al. teaches such limitations.
Li et al. is directed to method and arrangement in a wireless communication system. More specifically, Li et al. teaches perform data integrity checks on the data packets received (Li et al. teaches that a check sum check is performed on data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel of the candidate channels (para. [0068]; FIG. 3); check sum check comprises extracting a check sum value from data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel, calculating a check sum based on the received data, and comparing the extracted check sum value with the calculated check sum (para. [0068])); and assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed (Li et al. teaches the check sum check is considered successful when the calculated check sum corresponds to the extracted check sum value, when comparing them (para. [0068]); the UE selects the prioritized candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is successful (para. [0070])[Examiner’s Note: selecting the channel indicates improvement of the channel rating from the prioritized candidate channel to the selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to selectee based on check sum result]) and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed (Li et al. teaches that the UE rejects the candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is unsuccessful (para. [0072])[Examiner’s Note: rejecting the channel indicates deteriorating channel rating from prioritized candidate channel to the non-selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to non-selectee based on check sum result]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NDM technique of Smith et al. to include the wireless radio channel selection technique, as taught by Li et al The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 23, Smith et al. teaches A method of operating a digital radio communication system (Smith et al. teaches a network topology that is used for a number of internet-of-things (IoT) networks coupled through backbone links to gateways (para. [0054]; FIG. 3)) comprising a central device and a peripheral device in accordance with a predetermined communication protocol (Smith et al. teaches a gateway and IoT devices (para. [0054]; FIG. 3); any number of network protocols and communications standards are used (para. [0036]); devices communicate over LPWA links, Wi-Fi links (para. [0041]), employing relevant protocol), the method comprising: both devices transmitting data packets over a plurality of available radio channels having different frequencies (Smith et al. teaches that the payload for longer messages is fragmented and are sent over parallel radio channels utilizing network division multiplexing (NDM) technique (para. [0116]); NDM supports multiple different network infrastructure paths, such as a number of low power wide area (LPWA) paths in concert with a number of IEEE 802.15.4g routes (para. [0116])[Examiner’s Note: LPWA and IEEE 802.15.4g routes operate on different frequencies]; fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129]); IoT device includes IoT gateways (para. [0034]) and the NDM technique is performed by IoT device [para. [0124]; FIG. 18)); both devices receiving the data packets transmitted by the other respective device (Smith et al. teaches that fragments are received from a sending device over a number of different communications channels (para. [0129]); devices are in communication over LPWA links (para. [0054]; FIG. 3); IoT device includes IoT gateways (para. [0034]) and the NDM technique is performed by IoT device [para. [0124]; FIG. 18)).
Although operating in multi-link network and utilizing data integrity (para. [0051][0115]), Smith et al. does not teach both devices performing data integrity checks on the data packets received; and at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed. Li et al. teaches such limitations.
Li et al. is directed to method and arrangement in a wireless communication system. More specifically, Li et al. teaches both devices performing data integrity checks on the data packets received (Li et al. teaches that a check sum check is performed on data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel of the candidate channels (para. [0068]; FIG. 3); check sum check comprises extracting a check sum value from data received over the prioritized candidate radio channel, calculating a check sum based on the received data, and comparing the extracted check sum value with the calculated check sum (para. [0068])[Examiner’s Note: Receiving device will perform CRC check, which indicates that both devices will perform CRC check on received packets]); wherein at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to assign a dynamic channel rating to one or more of said radio channels based on an outcome of at least some of the data integrity checks by improving the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is passed (Li et al. teaches the check sum check is considered successful when the calculated check sum corresponds to the extracted check sum value, when comparing them (para. [0068]); the UE selects the prioritized candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is successful (para. [0070])[Examiner’s Note: selecting the channel indicates improvement of the channel rating from the prioritized candidate channel to the selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to selectee based on check sum result]) and deteriorating the dynamic channel rating when a data integrity check performed on a received packet is failed (Li et al. teaches that the UE rejects the candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is unsuccessful (para. [0072])[Examiner’s Note: rejecting the channel indicates deteriorating channel rating from prioritized candidate channel to the non-selected channel. Further channel rating is dynamic as the channel status (e.g., rating) can change from selectable to non-selectee based on check sum result]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NDM technique of Smith et al. to include the wireless radio channel selection technique, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24 is directed to a method claim and it does not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 24 is also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 25, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to cause a digital radio transceiver to operate in accordance with the method as claimed in claim 24 (Smith et al., FIGs. 21, 27, para. [0141] and Li et al. para. [0095]: A non-transitory, machine readable medium including code to direct a processor to perform the method as claimed in claim 24).
Regarding Claim 26, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to remove radio channels from a channel map, based on their channel ratings (Li et al. teaches that the rejected channel is removed from any temporarily stored list comprising candidate channels on which it may has been temporarily stored (para. [0072]); candidate radio channel which has not fulfilled the criterion and/or has been prioritized is temporarily stored in a reservoir of non-criterion fulfilled candidate radio channels, if the determined physical entity does not fulfill the mentioned criterion (para. [0076]; FIG. 3); the last criterion is the CRC criterion or check value comparison (para. [0046]); if the criterion is not fulfilled, the candidate channel is temporarily stored among non-criterion fulfilled candidate channel (para. [0067])[Examiner’s Note: The list of criterion-fulfilled candidate channels reads on channel map from which the candidate channel is selected from]), wherein the channel map comprises a selection of radio channel frequencies available for transmission by the central and peripheral devices (Li et al. teaches that the rejected channel is removed from any temporarily stored list comprising candidate channels on which it may has been temporarily stored (para. [0072])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that radio channels are removed from a channel map, based on their channel ratings, as taught by Li et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select a radio channel out of a plurality of candidate radio channels (para. [0020]).
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200851), Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0190377), and further in view of Chae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0037192).
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is further arranged to degrade the rating assigned to at least some channels which have not been improved or deteriorated based on data integrity checks for at least a predetermined interval (Li et al. teaches that the check sum check is considered successful when the calculated check sum corresponds to the extracted check sum value, when comparing them otherwise, the check sum check is considered unsuccessful (para. [0068]); the UE selects the prioritized candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is successful (para. [0070]); the UE rejects the candidate radio channel, if the check sum check is unsuccessful (para. [0072])).
However, the references do not teach performing data integrity checks for at least a predetermined interval, and thus, does not teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is further arranged to degrade the rating assigned to at least some channels which have not been improved or deteriorated based on data integrity checks for at least a predetermined interval. Chae et al. teaches such a limitation.
Chae et al. teaches wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is further arranged to degrade the rating assigned to at least some channels which have not been improved or deteriorated based on data integrity checks for at least a predetermined interval (Chae et al. teaches that if all CRCs are not passed in the predetermined time window then it is declared that measurement has failed and a measurement value for a corresponding UE is discarded (para. [0131])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. so that the rating assigned to at least some channels which have not been improved or deteriorated is degraded based on data integrity checks for at least a predetermined interval, as taught by Chae et al. The modification would have allowed the system to prevent inaccurate data from factoring into the decision (para. [0129]).
13. Claims 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200851), Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0190377), and further in view of Malnati (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0067145).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 26, however, the references do not teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to compare the rating of each channel to an average rating of at least some of the radio channels in said channel map.
In the same field of endeavor, Malnati teaches wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to compare the rating of each channel to an average rating of at least some of the radio channels in said channel map (Malnati teaches determine whether any channel of the set of channels is below a threshold amount below the average, FIG. 1: Step 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Li et al. so that the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to compare the rating of each channel to an average rating of at least some of the radio channels in said channel map, as taught by Malnati. The modification would have allowed the system to generate an alert for a data channel when the data channel is determined to be below the calculated average data rate by the threshold amount (para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Smith et al., Li et al. and Malnati teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 4, and further, the references teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to remove channels that are worse than the average by a predetermined percentage
(Malnati teaches “any channel of the set of channels is below a threshold amount below the average”, FIG. 1 Step 106; Li et al. teaches that the rejected channel is removed from any temporarily stored list comprising candidate channels (para. [0072])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Li et al. so that the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to remove channels that are worse than the average by a predetermined percentage, as taught by Malnati. The modification would have allowed the system to generate an alert for a data channel when the data channel is determined to be below the calculated average data rate by the threshold amount (para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 1, although teaching removing channels not meeting the criteria (Li et al. para. [0072]), the references do not teach wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to: calculate an average channel rating of all of the radio channels in a channel map; compare the rating of each individual channel to the average channel rating; and remove at least one channel having a rating worse that the average channel rating by a predetermined amount from the channel map.
In the same field of endeavor, Malnati teaches wherein the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to: calculate an average channel rating of all of the radio channels in a channel map (Malnati teaches that calculate an average data rate for the set of channels, see FIG. 1 Step 104); compare the rating of each individual channel to the average channel rating (Malnati teaches determining whether any channel of the set of channels is below a threshold amount below the calculated average data rate, see FIG. 1 Step 106); and remove at least one channel having a rating worse that the average channel rating by a predetermined amount from the channel map (Malnati teaches if the calculated average for the set of channels is 1.0 Mb/s and the threshold is 500 kb/s, then any channel with a data rate below 500 kb/s may be flagged for an alert, see FIG. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Li et al. so that the at least one of the central and peripheral devices is arranged to: calculate an average channel rating of all of the radio channels in a channel map; compare the rating of each individual channel to the average channel rating; and remove at least one channel having a rating worse that the average channel rating by a predetermined amount from the channel map, as taught by Malnati. The modification would have allowed the system to generate an alert for a data channel when the data channel is determined to be below the calculated average data rate by the threshold amount (para. [0011]).
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200851), Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0190377), and further in view of ALDANA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20200120458).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 26, however, the references do not teach wherein the central is arranged to communicate the channel map to the peripheral.
In the same field of endeavor, ALDANA teaches wherein the central is arranged to communicate the channel map to the peripheral (ALDANA teaches the cluster head (or central device) evaluates channels and selects carriers for inter-operator carrier communication, and that cluster head provides cluster signaling to vehicular communication device that specifies the selected carriers FIG. 79, para. [1178]; para. [1260] teaches the communication device selects a channel from the plurality of channels based on the evaluation, transmits an indication of the channel to one or more vehicular communication devices, and transmit or receive radio signals on the channel.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Li et al. so that the central is arranged to communicate the channel map to the peripheral, as taught by ALDANA. The modification would have been to provide network connectivity for other terminal devices (para. [0166]).
15. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200851), Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0190377), and further in view of Kirk et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,580,389 B2).
Regarding Claim 27, the combined teachings of Smith et al. and Li et al. teach The radio communication system as claimed in claim 26, however, the references do not teach wherein the central and peripheral devices are arranged to frequency hop between the radio channels provided in the channel map according to a predetermined algorithm.
In the field of endeavor, Kirk teaches wherein the central and peripheral devices are arranged to frequency hop between the radio channels provided in the channel map according to a predetermined algorithm (Referring now to step 602 of FIG. 6, an indication of the assigned radio channel is included in the message. In one embodiment, the indication of the assigned sequence of radio channels is simply a series of numbers that are appended to the end of the message. After message transmission is completed, the radio channel is changed to the next radio channel in the assigned sequence of radio channels as shown by step 603. Moreover, Kirk also discloses After the transmission of the message is complete, the process moves or "hops" to the next radio channel in the assigned sequence of radio channels as shown by step 603, see col 5, lines 1-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith et al. and Li et al. so that the central and peripheral devices are arranged to frequency hop between the radio channels provided in the channel map according to a predetermined algorithm, as taught by Kirk. The modification would have been to provide for communicating or coupling data from a first communication device to a second communication device by transmitting information over unoccupied radio channels (col. 2, lines 29-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 13-21 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.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30 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, REBECCA E. SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights