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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to filing on 06/06/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michielsen (WO 2023/011917 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Michielsen teaches
A multi-protocol node comprising (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol)):
a storage element (Michielsen pg. 12 lines 26-33: storage means including memory devices); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the storage element (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 13-15: computer programming code (instructions) executed by the processing means; pg. 12 lines 26-33: code stored on storage means including memory devices), the instructions being executable to selectively update a corresponding connectivity mode from an initial connectivity mode based whether the multi-protocol node detects a networking device and based on another corresponding connectivity mode of a neighboring multi-protocol node (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: may decide to select a dual-mode for further node (connectivity mode of a neighboring multi-protocol node) by comparing connectivity information; Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: switch between first and second modes (selectively update connectivity mode), can be from second protocol to first protocol).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michielsen (WO 2023/011917 A1) in view of Matthieu (Patent No.: US 9,210,534 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Michielsen teaches
A method for operating a network of multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 8 paragraph 1: method; Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: network of nodes; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol)) comprising:
…the first multi-protocol node configuring itself to enable a first connectivity mode using the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself); per the claim language reciting “or” only one of the recited limitations is required), enable a second connectivity mode using a second communications protocol, or enable a bridge connectivity mode using the first communications protocol and the second communications protocol based on whether the first multi-protocol node detects the networking device.
While Michielsen does teach a device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node, Michielsen appears to be silent regarding explicitly searching for a network device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
searching for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol) where multiple devices are present (plurality of nodes)); and…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 2, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
prior to the searching, configuring the first multi-protocol node in the second connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 5-7: configured to operate according to a second mode).
Regarding claim 3, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
in response to a trigger event, using the second communications protocol to provision each of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes to enable the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: trigger event causing to switch between first and second modes, can be from second protocol to first protocol).
Regarding claim 4, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node enables the second connectivity mode in response to the first multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 14 cl. 1 and pg. 8 lines 1-12 connectivity information, connectivity problem of the node switching between the first and second mode).
Regarding claim 5, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node enables the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: “the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol”, only one option is required per the claim language), enables the second connectivity mode, or enables the bridge connectivity mode further based on whether neighboring multi-protocol nodes of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device.
Regarding claim 6, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 5 (the limitations of parent claim 5 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
the first multi-protocol node receiving indications of enabled connectivity modes of neighboring multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 3 lines 26-28: connectivity information comprising number of active neighbor entries).
Regarding claim 7, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 5 (the limitations of parent claim 5 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node enables the first connectivity mode in response to all multi-protocol nodes neighboring the first multi-protocol node being connected to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; pg. 2 lines 22-24: “comprising connectivity information of the node when operating in the first mode”).
Regarding claim 8, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 4 (the limitations of parent claim 4 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein the first multi-protocol node enables the bridge connectivity mode in response to at least one multi-protocol node neighboring the first multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: “may decide to select a dual-mode node [bridge connectivity mode] for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network by comparing the connectivity information received from that node against a certain selection criterion”; dual-mode operation capability; pg. 7 lines 14-17: select dual-mode node by comparing connectivity information).
Regarding claim 9, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above) further comprising:
Michielsen further teaches
all other multi-protocol nodes of the plurality of multi-protocol nodes enabling the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device), enabling the second connectivity mode, or enabling the bridge connectivity mode based on whether each other multi-protocol node detects the networking device.
Regarding claim 10, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 9 (the limitations of parent claim 9 as indicated above)
Michielsen further teaches
wherein all the other multi-protocol nodes configure themselves to enable the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself)), enable the second connectivity mode, or enable the bridge connectivity mode further based on whether corresponding neighboring multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device.
Regarding claim 11, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The method as recited in claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above)
While Michielsen does disclose an inter-PAN, Michielsen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first communications protocol is a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol is a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, discloses
wherein the first communications protocol is a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol is a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol (Matthieu col. 7 lines 12-60: personal area network (PAN) may provide network access, “An IoT device may be connectable to a local area network (LAN), a personal area network (PAN), and to a wide area network (WAN). For example, an IoT device may include one or more radios operating using one or more communications protocols that allow the IoT device to connect to one or more LANs or PANs”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and have the first communications protocol be a wireless local area network protocol and the second communications protocol be a wireless personal area network mesh network protocol. Doing so would provide network access for a user’s personal devices and may further provide access to other networks (Matthieu col. 7 lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 12, Michielsen teaches
A network of multi-protocol nodes (Michielsen pg. 3 paragraph 2: network of nodes; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 9-11: supports both protocols (multi-protocol)), the network comprising:
a multi-protocol node comprising (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising…”):
a radio frequency transceiver configured to transmit and receive radio frequency signals (Michielsen pg. 12 line 1: radio unit with transceiver); and
data processing circuitry (Michielsen pg. 13 lines 4-5 and pg. 8 lines 13-15: processing means/processors) operable to:
…enable a first connectivity mode using the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself); per the claim language reciting “or” only one of the recited limitations is required), enable a second connectivity mode using a second communications protocol, or enable a bridge connectivity mode using the first communications protocol and the second communications protocol based on whether the multi-protocol node detects the networking device.
While Michielsen does teach a device associated with a first communications protocol by a first multi-protocol node, Michielsen appears to be silent regarding explicitly searching.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
use the radio frequency transceiver to search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol)); and…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and have the radio frequency transceiver to search for a networking device associated with a first communications protocol. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 13, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 12 (the limitations of parent claim 12 as indicated above) wherein the data processing circuitry comprises:
a storage element (Michielsen pg. 12 lines 26-33: storage means including memory devices); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the storage element, the instructions being executable by the processor (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 13-15: computer programming code (instructions) executed by the processing means; pg. 12 lines 26-33: code stored on storage means including memory devices) to cause the processor to:
configure the radio frequency transceiver and the data processing circuitry to …and selectively enable the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 8 lines 3-5: “the node comprising the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol…”; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device (configuring itself); per the claim language reciting “or” only one of the recited limitations is required), the second connectivity mode, or the bridge connectivity mode based on whether the multi-protocol node detects the networking device.
Michielsen does not appear to explicitly teach searching.
However, Matthieu, in the analogous art of utilizing device protocols, teaches
… search for a networking device associated with the first connectivity mode (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49: searching for devices to connect with based on a connection protocol (communications protocol); Matthieu col. 31 lines 60-65: first connection protocol connecting in first mode) …
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Michielsen to incorporate the teachings of Matthieu and search for a networking device associated with the first connectivity mode. Doing so would allow for certain criteria to be used when searching for a device (Matthieu col. 29 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 14, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
configure the multi-protocol node in the second connectivity mode prior to the search (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 5-7: configured to operate according to a second mode); and
in response to a trigger event, use the second communications protocol to provision each multi-protocol node of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes to enable the first communications protocol (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: trigger event causing to switch between first and second modes, can be from second protocol to first protocol).
Regarding claim 15, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to enable the second connectivity mode in response to the multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 14 cl. 1 and pg. 8 lines 1-12 connectivity information, connectivity problem of the node switching between the first and second mode).
Regarding claim 16, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to enable the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 7 line 30- pg. 8 line 12: “the node performing the steps of: operating in a first mode according to a first communication protocol”, only one option is required per the claim language), enable the second connectivity mode, or enable the bridge connectivity mode further based on whether neighboring devices of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device.
Regarding claim 17, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the multi-protocol node enables the first connectivity mode in response to all multi-protocol nodes neighboring the multi-protocol node being connected to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; pg. 2 lines 22-24: “comprising connectivity information of the node when operating in the first mode”).
Regarding claim 18, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) wherein the multi-protocol node enables the bridge connectivity mode in response to at least one multi-protocol node neighboring the multi-protocol node failing to connect to the networking device (Michielsen pg. 7 lines 14-22: “may decide to select a dual-mode node [bridge connectivity mode] for accessing the at least one further node in the mesh network by comparing the connectivity information received from that node against a certain selection criterion”; dual-mode operation capability; pg. 7 lines 14-17: select dual-mode node by comparing connectivity information).
Regarding claim 19, Michielsen modified by Matthieu teaches
The network as recited in claim 13 (the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above) the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
self-enable, by all other multi-protocol nodes of a plurality of multi-protocol nodes, the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device), the second connectivity mode, or the bridge connectivity mode based on whether each other multi- protocol node detects the networking device,
wherein all the other multi-protocol nodes configure themselves to enable the first connectivity mode (Michielsen pg. 9 lines 12-17 and pg. 2 lines 15-27: node and further node (all other multi-protocol nodes) in first mode; Michielsen pg. 3 lines 2-4: configuration carried out by an application running on the device), the second connectivity mode, or the bridge connectivity mode further based on whether corresponding neighboring multi-protocol nodes detect the networking device.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Knaappila (Pub. No.: US 2019/0037419 A1) discloses connections between a plurality of nodes in a mesh network as well as connectivity information and different modes/states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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.
/R.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412