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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agerstam et al (2020/0170024).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-11, Agerstam discloses a system, a method, and a communication device (see device 105, 205 in figures 1, 2, and 8) comprising: one or more processors configured to: determine a timing of time-division multiplexing data communication and a radio frequency to be used for the data communication based on a predetermined determination rule (scheduling and/or contention free mentioned in paragraphs 0025, performed by device 105 can be considered a predetermined rule) common to a plurality of communication devices (see devices 140, 130 in figure 1) included in a time-division multiplexing communication system, the predetermined determination rule using a number of hops from a specific communication device of the plurality of communication devices (see the radio resources in frequency and time between motes in paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0036-0037; parents may aggregate data from children until frame capacity is reached in paragraph 0036; hop in paragraphs 0014, 0026); and control wireless communication to be performed at the determined frequency at the determined timing (see figures 2 and 3 and scheduling and frequency and time slot assignment in paragraphs 0022, 0025, 0029, 0037, 0044-0056).
Regarding claim 2, Agerstam discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to, based on the determination rule using the number of hops and a number of a plurality of slots included in a slot frame, determine one of the plurality of slots as the timing of the data communication (see parents may aggregate data from children until frame capacity is reached. The parent may then be assigned the next available timeslot within the same channel if an additional time slot is needed (e.g., aggregated sensor data is larger than the capacity of one slot). Additional branches in the tree build up the schedule via assignments to the next available channel. If there is a conflict while allocating a timeslot—such as when the receiving mote 215 has already been allocated to perform an operation in another channel for a given timeslot—then the next timeslot is considered in paragraph 0036; distance is measured by intervening devices (e.g., hops) in the second network in paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Agerstam discloses based on the determination rule using the number of hops and a number of a plurality of available frequencies, determine one of the plurality of frequencies as the frequency to be used for the data communication (see frequency (channel) in paragraphs 0025, 0036, 0044).
Regarding claim 4, Agerstam discloses based on the determination rule using the number of hops, a number of a plurality of available frequencies, and information indicating a current slot, determine one of the plurality of frequencies as the frequency to be used for the data communication (see available frequency (channel) in paragraphs 0025-0026, 0036-0037, 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Agerstam discloses wherein the plurality of communication devices constitute a multi-hop network in such a manner that each communication device sets one or less communication devices of the plurality of communication devices as a parent node (see a multi-hop network in figure 2; a parent node in paragraphs 0024-0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Agerstam discloses wherein the plurality of communication devices constitute a multi-hop network in such a manner that each communication device sets one or less communication devices of the plurality of communication devices as a child node (see a multi-hop network in figure 2; a child node in paragraphs 0024-0027, 0036).
Regarding claim 7, Agerstam discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to control wireless communication to be performed at the determined frequency at the determined timing in such a manner that the data communication is performed at a time different from a time of data communication performed by another communication device having the same number of hops (see figure 2 and 3 and paragraphs 0029, 0036, 0044-0056 where different time slots and frequencies (channels) are configured for different nodes).
Regarding claim 8, Agerstam discloses wherein the plurality of communication devices are connected to each other by a plurality of communication paths, the plurality of communication paths are assigned with frequencies in different ranges, and the one or more processors are configured to, for each of the plurality of communication paths, determine the frequency to be used for the data communication among the frequencies included in the frequency ranges (see figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 0029, 0036, 0044-0056 where different 3 different paths from 215i, 215f, and 215M to 205 use different channels (frequencies)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that “According to independent claim 1, each of a plurality of communication devices included in a time-division multiplexing communication system determines, without using information exchanged with other communication devices, a timing and a radio frequency of the data communication based on a determination rule common to the plurality of communication devices. This approach eliminates the need for inter-device negotiation, thereby reducing control overhead and suppressing negotiation load. By contrast, as shown in Figure 1 (reproduced above) Agerstam discloses a centralized scheduling system 105, in which a processing circuitry 120 creates a transmission schedule 125 for multiple devices 130. Agerstam [0025]. Agerstam does not disclose, or even teach or suggest, that each device 130 independently determines its own communication timing and frequency based on a common determination rule. Instead, in Agersiam’s system 105, the scheduling is externally imposed by the processing circuitry 120.”. This argument is irrelevant because claim 1 does not claim “each of a plurality of communication devices included in a time-division multiplexing communication system determines, without using information exchanged with other communication devices, a timing and a radio frequency of the data communication based on a determination rule common to the plurality of communication devices”. Claim 1 claimed a communication device that determine a timing of time-division multiplexing communication and a radio frequency to be used for the data communication based on a predetermined determination rule common to a plurality of communication devices included in a time-division multiplexing communication system. Nowhere in claim 1 describes the communication device is one of the plurality of communication devices included in a time-division multiplexing communication system. In addition, Agerstam clearly discloses the system 105 in figure 1 determine a timing of time-division multiplexing data communication and a radio frequency to be used for the data communication based on a predetermined determination rule. As shown in figure 1, the system 105 is connected for communication with elements 130 and 140 and schedule communications based on time and frequency (see paragraphs 0025). The applicant does not define what a predetermined determination rule is, so scheduling can be considered the predetermined rule. Contention free mentioned in paragraphs 0025 can also be considered the predetermined rule. Note that claim 1 does not claim each device of the plurality of communication devices independently determines its own communication timing and frequency based on a common determination rule. In dependent claims 9-11 recites features similar to those discussed above and therefore is anticipated by Agerstam.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3084. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
/BRIAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475