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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-16, 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claims now require resuming broadcasting signals after an occurrence of a non-time based trigger event within the stop broadcast signal. The specification appears to lack support for this amendment. Paragraph 9 of the as filed specification teaches a stop broadcast signal is transmit, then more signaling is exchanged, and later a separate resume broadcast signal is sent after the communications are complete between the controlling device and wireless devices. Paragraphs 69-70 of the as filed specification teach the same information as in paragraph 9. Paragraphs 68-69 further teach the stop broadcast signal may include a specified duration or expiration. This is the only information that is found in the stop broadcast signal which is time based. Therefore, the specification lacks support for the notion of a non-time based trigger event within the stop broadcast signal.
Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 13-16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadman et al. “Wadman” US 2016/0026832 in view of Shekarri et al. “Shekarri” US2009/0251545 and further in view of Carrigan et al. “Carrigan” US 2015/0008831 (Submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 15, Wadman teaches a method device and system comprising:
Two or more wireless devices, wherein each wireless device comprises a controller/processor, a wireless transceiver coupled to the controller/processors and an antenna coupled to the wireless transceiver circuit (Figure 1 shows a wireless system with tag readers. Figures 2a-2C show the processor, antenna and controller in the wireless devices);
Wherein the controller/processor of each device is configured to 1) exchange one or more communications between the wireless lighting device and two or more other devices within a wireless network and 2) stop broadcasting after receiving a stop broadcast from a controlling device which is not one of the two or more other wireless devices (The devices are communicating in the system and the server sends a stop broadcast command to all of the tags except a master tag and the master tag can continue to communicate; Figure 7 and Paragraphs 58 and 102. The server is not a tag and thus it is not one of the two or more other wireless devices. The cloud server/server can use a wakeup message to allow all the tags to begin broadcasting again; Paragraphs 8, 13 and 80. Thus one can see the system sends stop and resume broadcast signals to devices in the network. The device in the short-range network exchange data between each other; Paragraph 37-38. Figure 1 also shows a plurality of tags communicating information between each other (thus exchanging data)).
While Wadman teaches the stop broadcast has a triggering event (the server instructs the tag read to transmit a control message to all tags except the master stop transmitting; Paragraph 58. The other tags may start broadcasting again if they are separate from the cluster cease to detect broadcasts from the master; Paragraph 64. The server instruction is viewed as the triggering event), Wadman does not expressly disclose resuming broadcasting non time-based event within the stop broadcast signal or another device initiating communications; however, Shekarri teaches receiving a command to stop transmitting for a predetermined amount of time; Paragraph 40. This transmission is with respect to broadcast transmission. As the command is to temporarily stop transmitting for a set time, this time would expire and thus the device would resume transmissions. Thus one can see Shekarri teaches resume broadcasting at a duration and/or expiration of a received stop signal. The specification of the instant application does not define what non time-based trigger event is. The only mention of information within the stop broadcast signal is a specification duration or expiration which is what Shekarri teaches.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wadman to include resuming transmission after a duration/expiration of a stop broadcast signal as taught by Shekarri.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can control when devices transmit/receive signaling at random times or set times as taught by Shekarri; Paragraph 40.
The prior art does not expressly disclose that there is at least one wireless lighting device communicating broadcast signals; however, Carrigan teaches that lighting fixtures (i.e. wireless lighting devices) can exchange signals and send broadcasts; See Figure 9 and Paragraph 106. The communications to the light fixtures include wireless (Paragraph 91).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include at least one of the wireless devices to be a wireless lighting device as taught by Carrigan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that light fixtures can send/receive communications for purposes of monitoring as taught by Carrigan; Paragraphs 94-97 and 106.
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 16, Wadman teaches the communications are sent directly or indirectly via a network (Figures 1, 5, and 6 show communications going through a network).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Wadman teaches each device periodically broadcasts signals (the devices broadcast during specific periods of time; Paragraph 62. Further, prior to receiving a stop broadcast command, all the tags are broadcasting; Paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 6, Wadman teaches the communication satisfy one or more parameters based on UE, program requirements, device requirements, or network requirements (communications are only performed to the master after the stop command because the master tag represents the cluster of tags; Paragraph 59).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Wadman teaches the wireless devices are sensors (Tag sensors; Paragraph 56).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Wadman teaches checking the signal strength between the devices (Paragraph 85, signal strength is monitored continuously).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Wadman teaches increasing/decreasing signal power of a wireless device (less transmission or less power is used during normal operations; Paragraph 79. Further, tags can also become unpowered (i.e. decreased power); Paragraph 81).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadman in view of Shekarri in view of Carrigan and further in view of Mitra US 2016/0300480.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Wadman does not expressly disclose the broadcast signals include device ID; however, Mitra teaches that devices broadcast signals identifying the device on a regular basis; Paragraph 50.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wadman to include broadcasting signals which identify the device as taught by Mitra.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can identify and control certain devices as taught by Mitra; Paragraph 50.
Claim 10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadman in view of Shekarri in view of Carrigan and further in view of Furuno US5,146,614.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Wadman does not expressly disclose the device has a signal/amplification gain which is set when required; however, Furuno teaches a radio transceiver transmits signals which are amplified with a fixed gain; Column 7 Line 65 to Column 8 Line 7.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wadman to include signal gain/amplification as taught by Furuno.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that transceiver can control the transmitting output level of information as taught by Furuno; Column 7 lines 65-68.
Claims 11, 12, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadman in view of Shekarri in view of Carrigan and further in view of Westerkowsky US 2017/0286094.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Wadman does not disclose the device is recognized by firmware number or parameter set within the firmware; however, Westerkowsky teaches that firmware fulfills all the tasks of a device and conforms to the operating software of M2M modules of the devices (i.e. parameter set); Paragraph 2.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wadman to include the parameter set information within the firmware as taught by Westerkowsky.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system conforms to the proper operating methods of the devices as taught by Westerkowsky; Paragraph 2.
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Wadman does not disclose a firmware update is performed; however, Westerkowsky teaches that in the field, firmware updates can be performed remotely for wireless communication devices; Paragraph 6.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Wadman to include updating firmware as taught by Westerkowsky.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that devices can be remotely updated without a person having to travel to the location of the devices as taught by Westerkowsky; Paragraph 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-16, 18-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment to the claims does not appear to be supported by the specification and thus a new 112a rejection has been introduced as shown above. Based on the specification of the instant application, the only mention of information included in the stop broadcast signal tied to resumption of broadcasting is time-based information. Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection above. There are no further arguments with respect to other limitations of the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411