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 Status
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 17 and 21 –25 are pending and claims 7, 12, 18 – 20 are canceled, and claims 21 – 25 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9 – 11, 14 – 16, 21 – 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dash et al. US 2020/0314872 A1, hereinafter Dash in view of Narayanan et al. US11678197, hereinafter Narayanan and further in view of Levensalor et al. US 11968548 B1, hereinafter Levensalor.
Regarding claim 1, Dash teaches a method comprising: (Dash: para. [0099] and 600 may be performed by any suitable system, apparatus, or device. For example, the wireless communication device 108 of FIG. 1. Para. [0119] Computer-executable instructions may include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or special-purpose processing device (e.g., one or more processors) to perform or control performance of a certain function or group of functions)
receiving, from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol;
(Dash: para. [0100] and Fig. 6 block 602, at which a first set of one or more parameters of communication between a first radio and a first STA may be detected. the first set of one or more parameters may be detected on a set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the first radio may be configured to communicate with the first STA according to a first communication protocol)
receiving, from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol; and
(Dash: para. [0101] and Fig. 6 block 604, a second set of one or more parameters of communication between a second radio and a second STA may be detected. In some implementations, the second set of one or more parameters may be detected on the set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the second radio may be configured to communicate with the second STA according to a second communication protocol that is different than the first communication protocol)
enabling, based on a quantity, packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the enabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first or second communications. (Dash: para. [0055 & 0058 & 0102-0103] block 606 of Fig. 6the CMC 426 may at least partially control channel access for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and the WPAN 429 based on the comparison of the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, and the third set of parameters (corresponds to claim limitation “quantity”). para. [0103 & 0024] block 608 of Fig. 6, how the first radio communicates on the first set of channels and how the second radio communicates on the second set of channels may be directed (corresponds to claim limitation “enabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first or second communications”). For example, the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels. Para. [0021 & 0020] For the packet traffic arbitration solution, a PTA circuit may authorize all transmissions on the shared channels by the radios)
It is noted that Dash does not explicitly disclose: receiving, by a wireless gateway and from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol; receiving, by the wireless gateway and from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: receiving, by a wireless gateway and from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol; receiving, by the wireless gateway and from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol. (Narayanan: Col. 11 lines 60-65 an access point 200, such as access point 110-1 in FIG. 1. Access point 200 may include an embedded IoT gateway and may provide a sensor management platform that is programmable and that can be easily integrated with existing management solutions. Abstract and Col. 9 lines 16-26 packet-traffic arbitration between radios 120-1 and 120-2 may be used. In particular, when one of the radios is transmitting or receiving using a channel and a first communication protocol, it may communicate a hold (such as a hold signal or instruction) to the other radio, so that the other radio temporarily does not communicate using the channel and a second communication protocol) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
It is noted that Dash and Narayanan do not explicitly disclose: enabling, based on a quantity of retransmission attempts or a quantity of clear channel assessment failures, packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the enabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first or second communications.
However, Levensalor from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: enabling, based on a quantity of retransmission attempts (path C has a lower number of retransmits) or a quantity of clear channel assessment failures, packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the enabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first or second communications (cause the data structure to be routed through path C). (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31 path C has a lower number of retransmits than path D, and the network element may cause the data structure to be routed through path C in response thereto. Col. 22 lines 47-52 (B5) In any one of the methods denoted as (B1)-(B4), the in-band telemetry data may include at least one of the following: (f) a number of retransmits on a communication link) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching Levensalor of in the method of Dash and Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for elements at a network hop could also be configured to use in-band telemetry data without assistance of an analytics engine, such as to help increase efficiency of data routing (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 2, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the enabling PTA comprises enabling PTA further based on one or more of: a data unit queue size associated with the first protocol; a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level associated with the first protocol; a quantity of transmission success reports for the first protocol; or a modulation coding scheme rate associated with the first protocol. (Dash: para. [0056] information extracted and/or derived from the preamble may include bandwidth occupied by the packet, length of the packet, modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the packet).
Dash does not teach: a data unit queue size associated with the first protocol; a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level associated with the first protocol; a quantity of transmission success reports for the first protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level associated with the first protocol; (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 a variety of performance metrics, such as: a received signal strength (RSSI)) a quantity of transmission success reports for the first protocol; and (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 ratio of number of bytes successfully communicated during a time interval (such as 1-10 s) to an estimated maximum number of bytes that can be communicated in the time interval (the latter of which is sometimes referred to as the ‘capacity’ of a communication channel or link)) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 3, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the enabling PTA comprises enabling PTA further based on a packet type associated with the second protocol. (Dash: para. [0100] and Fig. 6 block 602, at which a first set of one or more parameters of communication between a first radio and a first STA may be detected. Para. [0101] and Fig. 6 block 604, a second set of one or more parameters (corresponds to claim limitation “values for one or more parameters relating to the second protocol”) of communication between a second radio and a second STA may be detected. Para. [0058] CMC 426 may control channel access based on an operation mode priority. the CMC 426 may determine the operation mode of the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and/or the WPAN 429 based on the information extracted and/or derived from the preambles. the CMC 426 may control channel access to prioritize a particular operation mode (e.g., a particular protocol) over other operation modes. For example, the operation mode priority may indicate that a Wi-Fi operation mode has a higher priority than a cellular or a Bluetooth operation mode)
Regarding claim 4, Dash and Narayanan teach the method of claim 1, Dash does not teach: wherein enabling PTA comprises enabling PTA further based on one or more of: an received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level associated with the second protocol; a quantity of transmission success reports for the second protocol; or a signal to noise ratio associated with the second protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: a wherein enabling PTA comprises enabling PTA further based on one or more of: an received signal strength indicator (RSSI) level associated with the second protocol; (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 a variety of performance metrics, such as: a received signal strength (RSSI)) a quantity of transmission success reports for the second protocol; (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 ratio of number of bytes successfully communicated during a time interval (such as 1-10 s) to an estimated maximum number of bytes that can be communicated in the time interval (the latter of which is sometimes referred to as the ‘capacity’ of a communication channel or link)) or a signal to noise ratio associated with the second protocol (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 a signal-to-noise ratio) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 5, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, lower bandwidth, (Dash: para. [0065] CMC 426 may determine which shared channels include extra bandwidth based on the antenna configuration of the first set of antennas, the second set of antennas, and/or the third set of antennas. For example, a range of channels where interference is allowable may depend on the beamforming patterns and antenna isolation, which may be used to determine a part of the bandwidth that may be available for use by other radios. In addition, the CMC 426 may instruct the WLAN radio 424, the cellular radio 428, and/or the WPAN radio 430 to transmit on a particular shared channel that includes extra bandwidth based on the antenna configurations)
Dash does not teach: wherein the second protocol is associated with one or more of lower power consumption, or less stable frequencies when compared to the first protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: a wherein the second protocol is associated with one or more of lower power consumption (Narayanan: col. 6 lines 56 to col. 7 line 9 and col. 16 lines 44-48 Bluetooth low energy or BLE (from the Bluetooth Special Interest Group of Kirkland, Wash.), Zigbee (from the Zigbee Alliance of Davis, Calif.), Z-Wave (from Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, Calif.), LoRaWAN (from the Lora Alliance of Beaverton, Oreg.), Thread (from the Thread Group of San Ramon, Calif.), IPv6 over low-power wireless personal area networks or 6LoWPAN (from the Internet Engineering Taskforce of Fremont, Calif.)), lower bandwidth, or less stable frequencies when compared to the first protocol. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 6, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 4, Dash does not explicitly teaches: wherein the enabling PTA is further based on the RSSI levels associated with the second protocol comprises determining, by the wireless gateway, the RSSI levels associated with the second protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: wherein the enabling PTA is further based on the RSSI levels associated with the second protocol (Narayanan: Col. 11 lines 60-65 an access point 200, such as access point 110-1 in FIG. 1. Access point 200 may include an embedded IoT gateway and may provide a sensor management platform that is programmable and that can be easily integrated with existing management solutions. Abstract and Col. 9 lines 16-26 packet-traffic arbitration between radios 120-1 and 120-2 may be used. In particular, when one of the radios is transmitting or receiving using a channel and a first communication protocol, it may communicate a hold (such as a hold signal or instruction) to the other radio, so that the other radio temporarily does not communicate using the channel and a second communication protocol) comprises determining, by the wireless gateway, the RSSI levels associated with the second protocol (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 a variety of performance metrics, such as: a received signal strength (RSSI)) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 9, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, Das and Narayanan do not explicitly teach: wherein: the quantity of retransmission attempts is associated with the first protocol, or the quantity of clear channel assessment failures is associated with the second protocol.
Levensalor from the same or similar fields of endeavor teach: wherein: the quantity of retransmission attempts (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31 path C has a lower number of retransmits than path D, and the network element may cause the data structure to be routed through path C in response thereto. Col. 22 lines 47-52 (B5) In any one of the methods denoted as (B1)-(B4), the in-band telemetry data may include at least one of the following: (f) a number of retransmits on a communication link) is associated with the first protocol, (Levensalor: col. 17 lines 28-35 Remote access points 1204, 1206, 1208, and 1210 operate as wireless repeaters. In some embodiments, communication network 1200 operates according to a Wi-Fi protocol, a 4G wireless protocol, a 5G new radio (NR) protocol (licensed and/or unlicensed), or a 6G wireless protocol) or the quantity of clear channel assessment failures is associated with the second protocol. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching Levensalor of in the method of Dash and Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for elements at a network hop could also be configured to use in-band telemetry data without assistance of an analytics engine, such as to help increase efficiency of data routing (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 10, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 15, wherein after the disabling PTA, PTA remains enabled for one or more essential devices. (Dash: para. [0055 & 0058 & 0103] the CMC 426 may at least partially control channel access for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and the WPAN 429 based on the comparison of the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, and the third set of parameters. para. [0103] block 608, how the first radio communicates on the first set of channels and how the second radio communicates on the second set of channels may be directed. For example, the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting (corresponds to claim limitation “PTA is disabled”) and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels (corresponds to claim limitation “PTA remains enabled”). Para. [0021 & 0020] For the packet traffic arbitration solution, a PTA circuit may authorize all transmissions on the shared channels by the radios)
Regarding claim 11, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on receiving, from the second device, a predetermined a packet type associated with the second protocol, to stop using PTA. (Dash: para. [0055 & 0058 & 0103] the CMC 426 may at least partially control channel access for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and the WPAN 429 based on the comparison of the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, and the third set of parameters. para. [0103] block 608, how the first radio communicates on the first set of channels and how the second radio communicates on the second set of channels may be directed. For example, the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting (corresponds to claim limitation “PTA is disabled”) and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels (corresponds to claim limitation “PTA remains enabled”). Para. [0021 & 0020] For the packet traffic arbitration solution, a PTA circuit may authorize all transmissions on the shared channels by the radios)
Dash does not explicitly teaches: a predetermined quantity of a packet type associated with the second protocol.
However, Narayanan the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: a predetermined quantity of a packet type associated with the second protocol. (Narayanan: col. 8 lines 15-30 a ratio of an actual data rate to an estimated data rate (which is sometimes referred to as ‘utilization’) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 14, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, Dash and Narayanan do not teach: further comprising determining, based on the determining to enable the use of PTA, an updated quantity of retransmission attempts associated with the first protocol.
However, Levensalor from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: further comprising determining, based on the determining to enable the use of PTA, an updated quantity of retransmission attempts (updated telemetry data may include at least one of the following: (f) a number of retransmits on a communication link) associated with the first protocol. (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31 path C has a lower number of retransmits than path D, and the network element may cause the data structure to be routed through path C in response thereto. Col. 22 lines 47-52 (B5) In any one of the methods denoted as (B1)-(B4), the in-band telemetry data may include at least one of the following: (f) a number of retransmits on a communication link. Col. 18 lines 1-12 Central wireless access point 1202 updates a telemetry table from the in-band telemetry data, such as to determine to a path between central wireless access point 1202 and UE device 1212 having a lowest latency. Central wireless access point 1202 causes data to be transferred between central wireless access point 1202 and UE device 1212 via a path having a lowest latency, as determined from the telemetry table.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching Levensalor of in the method of Dash and Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for elements at a network hop could also be configured to use in-band telemetry data without assistance of an analytics engine, such as to help increase efficiency of data routing (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 15, Dash teaches a method comprising:
(Dash: para. [0099] and 600 may be performed by any suitable system, apparatus, or device. For example, the wireless communication device 108 of FIG. 1. Para. [0119] Computer-executable instructions may include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or special-purpose processing device (e.g., one or more processors) to perform or control performance of a certain function or group of functions)
receiving, from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol;
(Dash: para. [0100] and Fig. 6 block 602, at which a first set of one or more parameters of communication between a first radio and a first STA may be detected. the first set of one or more parameters may be detected on a set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the first radio may be configured to communicate with the first STA according to a first communication protocol)
receiving, from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol;
(Dash: para. [0101] and Fig. 6 block 604, a second set of one or more parameters of communication between a second radio and a second STA may be detected. In some implementations, the second set of one or more parameters may be detected on the set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the second radio may be configured to communicate with the second STA according to a second communication protocol that is different than the first communication protocol)
disabling, based on a quantity packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the disabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for the first communication (Dash: para. [0055 & 0058 & 0103] the CMC 426 may at least partially control channel access for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and the WPAN 429 based on the comparison of the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, and the third set of parameters (corresponds to claim limitation “quantity”). para. [0103] block 608, how the first radio communicates on the first set of channels and how the second radio communicates on the second set of channels may be directed. For example, the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting (corresponds to claim limitation “disabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first or second communications”) and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels. Para. [0021 & 0020] For the packet traffic arbitration solution, a PTA circuit may authorize all transmissions on the shared channels by the radios)
It is noted that Dash does not explicitly disclose: receiving, by a wireless gateway and from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol; receiving, by the wireless gateway and from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: receiving, by a wireless gateway and from a first device, a first communication using a first protocol; receiving, by the wireless gateway and from a second device, a second communication using a second protocol. (Narayanan: Col. 11 lines 60-65 an access point 200, such as access point 110-1 in FIG. 1 . Access point 200 may include an embedded IoT gateway and may provide a sensor management platform that is programmable and that can be easily integrated with existing management solutions. Abstract and Col. 9 lines 16-26 packet-traffic arbitration between radios 120-1 and 120-2 may be used. In particular, when one of the radios is transmitting or receiving using a channel and a first communication protocol, it may communicate a hold (such as a hold signal or instruction) to the other radio, so that the other radio temporarily does not communicate using the channel and a second communication protocol) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
It is noted that Dash and Narayanan do not explicitly disclose: disabling, based on a quantity of retransmission attempts or a quantity of clear channel assessment failures, packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the disabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for one of the first.
However, Levensalor from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: disabling, based on a quantity of retransmission attempts (path C has a lower number of retransmits) or a quantity of clear channel assessment failures, packet traffic arbitration (PTA), wherein the disabling PTA comprises reallocating transmission resources for the first communication (cause the data structure to be routed through path C). (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31 path C has a lower number of retransmits than path D, and the network element may cause the data structure to be routed through path C in response thereto. Col. 22 lines 47-52 (B5) In any one of the methods denoted as (B1)-(B4), the in-band telemetry data may include at least one of the following: (f) a number of retransmits on a communication link) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching Levensalor of in the method of Dash and Narayanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for elements at a network hop could also be configured to use in-band telemetry data without assistance of an analytics engine, such as to help increase efficiency of data routing (Levensalor: col. 14 lines 4-31).
Regarding claim 16, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-4, and therefore method claim 16 is rejected using the same rationales.
Regarding claim 21, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, Dash does not explicitly teach: wherein the wireless gateway comprises an access point with an embedded Internet-of-Things (IoT) gateway.
However, Narayanan from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches the use of: wherein the wireless gateway comprises an access point with an embedded Internet-of-Things (IoT) gateway. (Narayanan: Col. 11 lines 60-65 an access point 200, such as access point 110-1 in FIG. 1. Access point 200 may include an embedded IoT gateway and may provide a sensor management platform that is programmable and that can be easily integrated with existing management solutions. Abstract and Col. 9 lines 16-26 packet-traffic arbitration between radios 120-1 and 120-2 may be used. In particular, when one of the radios is transmitting or receiving using a channel and a first communication protocol, it may communicate a hold (such as a hold signal or instruction) to the other radio, so that the other radio temporarily does not communicate using the channel and a second communication protocol) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Narayanan in the method of Dash. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for communication technique may facilitate concurrent communication between the electronic device and one or more other electronic devices using the communication protocol and the other communication protocol. Consequently, the communication technique may improve the communication performance (such as reduced latency and interference) of the electronic device, which may improve the user experience when communicating using the electronic device and, more generally, may enable the IoT (Narayanan: Col. 5 lines 40-50).
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Dash a wireless gateway comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless gateway to: (Dash: para. [0099] and 600 may be performed by any suitable system, apparatus, or device. For example, the wireless communication device 108 of FIG. 1. Para. [0119] Computer-executable instructions may include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or special-purpose processing device (e.g., one or more processors) to perform or control performance of a certain function or group of functions) and Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach all the limitations as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 5, and therefore apparatus claims 22 – 23 are rejected using the same rationales.
Regarding claim 25, Dash, Narayanan and Levensalor teach the method of claim 1, wherein the enabling PTA is further based on a schedule indicating a time period during which PTA is to be enabled. (Dash: para. [0071-0073] CMC 426 may determine estimated traffic for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and/or the WPAN 429 based on the request signals. In these and other implementations, the CMC 426 may track the number of request signals provided by the WLAN radio 424, the cellular radio 428, and the WPAN radio 430 during a period of time. For example, the cellular radio 428 may provide thirty request signals, the WLAN radio 424 may provide seventy request signals, and the WPAN radio 430 may provide twenty request signals (corresponds to claim limitation “PTA to be enabled”) during a one-hour period. (corresponds to claim limitation “schedule indicating a time period”) In this example, the CMC 426 may determine the estimated traffic for an upcoming hour to be the same as the number of request signals sent during the one-hour period (e.g., the cellular radio 428 will provide thirty request signals, the WLAN radio 424 will provide seventy request signals, and the WPAN radio 430 will provide twenty request signals). During the upcoming hour, the CMC 426 may reserve particular channels for communication within the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and/or the WPAN 429 based on the estimated traffic for the WLAN 425, the cellular network 427, and/or the WPAN 429)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 13, 17 and 24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 17 and 21 –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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also see PTO-892.
Pertinent to claim 1 - Lyu et al. US20240214992A1 teaches in para. 0044 terminal device adopts the first resource allocation mode to determine the first time-frequency resource and the number of retransmissions of direct link data on the first time-frequency resource reaches a preset threshold, the terminal device can continue sending the direct link data on the second time-frequency resource. And para. [0063 - 0064] For example, the first preset threshold can be a threshold of retransmissions of high-priority signaling configuration received by the terminal device, or a threshold of retransmissions pre-defined by a protocol, which is not limited by the application. As a specific example, the first preset threshold can be 1, 2, 3, 4, or any other numerical value.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WUTCHUNG CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4064. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Moo R Jeong can be reached at (571) 272-9617. 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.
/WUTCHUNG CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights